home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: hell.team17.com!news
- From: boberg@team17.com (Stefan Boberg)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
- Subject: Re: AB3D II beats Quake....
- Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 19:53:04 GMT
- Organization: Team 17 Software Ltd.
- Message-ID: <4jhf45$25i@hell.team17.com>
- References: <31535e7f.44220455@news.hol.gr> <Dp10Ip.6GL@csc.liv.ac.uk> <4jh4nv$fhf@macondo.dmu.ac.uk>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: zonk.team17.com
- X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
-
- babbage@dmu.ac.uk (Babbage) wrote:
-
- >> The future generation of CPUs will be so complex that no Assembler
- >> programmer could ever hope to create code as efficient as a compiler.
- >> It would simply not be possible!
-
- >oh dear =:)
-
- What's wrong?
-
- Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know. Given that (s)he knows everything about
- the workings of the CPU, a human will always be able to generate
- better code than a compiler. BUT: Would you really like to sit there
- and annotate 100,000 lines of unreadable code with pipelining
- information (which takes bloody ages), when you could leave this to
- the compiler?? Especially if the overall performance gain is so
- negligible that the average CPU speed increased more during the period
- you spent optimizing your code?
-
- No. Leave everything in C/C++, and save the ASM coding for where you
- really need it (i.e. only for parts that execute more than 20% or so
- of the total execution time). The compiler WILL do a better job of it.
- Or even better, improve the algorithms instead.
-
- >babbage!
-
-
- ===============================================================
- Stefan Boberg boberg@team17.com
- "This, like, sucks in ways that we've never seen stuff suck
- before, so it's kinda cool!" - B&B
-
-