Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!nsc!nsta!instable!amos From: amos@instable.UUCP (Amos Shapir) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Assembly language and Speed... Message-ID: <652@instable.UUCP> Date: Fri, 19-Dec-86 04:29:28 EST Article-I.D.: instable.652 Posted: Fri Dec 19 04:29:28 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 20-Dec-86 00:28:40 EST References: <1233@navajo.STANFORD.EDU> Reply-To: amos%nsta@nsc (Amos Shapir) Organization: National Semiconductor (Israel) Ltd. Lines: 26 Summary: Anything you can do, C can do better In article <1233@navajo.STANFORD.EDU> billw@navajo.STANFORD.EDU (William E. Westfield) writes: >... I'd like to argue against the idea that HLL code >is only a "little bit" slower than assembly code. > > [describing a complicated way to do stack ops in PASCAL subroutines, and the compliacted code that is generated] What makes you think that a *good* optimizing compilers can't unroll function calls, put them in-line, and optimize them to a point that comes very close to the intended machine instruction? Any logic that you can put into the programming process, can be translated to an algorithm and done by tne compiler. It only takes a lot of CPU power and memory (in compile time only!) and these become cheaper all the time. (I know most of you still cant use such compilers, but they also become cheaper and more available - no flames on that, please) >BillW, writing small, fast, programs, in assembler, and happy. Amos Shapir, writing small, fast, programs, in C, and happy - much happier than I'd be if I had to write them in assembler! -- Amos Shapir National Semiconductor (Israel) 6 Maskit st. P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel (011-972) 52-522261 amos%nsta@nsc 34.48'E 32.10'N