🚀 go-pugleaf

>> If I'm not mistaken, then Pascal is converted to machine language. Is asm
>> not a one-on-one construction of machine language? The first thing I
learned
>> about computer is that the fastest way to program is in machine language!
>
>You mean, fastest code is written in machine language? That's what
>compilers are for -- to translate stuff into machine language.
What would then be fastest?

>_Generally_ is the keyword. In Real Life (tm) it seldom works that way.
>1. Look at target CPU. "General" cpu is assumed to execute instructons
>sequentially. P6 core doesn't: it runs them in parallel and has its own
>built-in optimizer with branch prediction and other arcane magic.
>Assembly code that's written with "general" cpu in mind may well be
>slower than Basic optimized for P6. (Add backwards compatibility here
>& have endless fun with 2,3,4,586 instructions on a P6...)
>2. Did I mention instruction caches? -- oh well I won't...
>3. Look at target OS. Benchmarking makes sense only in MS-DOS where your
>program is the only thing that's running. It also has all the resources.
>Once you move to a grown-up os, even as lame as '95, you run into
>schedulers, dynamic priority boosts, average job mixes and all that.
>You also run into resource management, like paging, where you can have
>fun with things like working set size and related optimizations (did
>I mention caching?)

Ah - the reasoning of 'IF'. What IF? Well, it doesn't. Altough it would be
hard,
nor wise for a project, it is not said impossible. And, OK, assembly for
a 8086 *can* slower than optimized basic code. But while were laying salt
on each snail, it also depends on the programmer. "IF" you have a good
programmer of basic, then this would be better THEN a lame asm programmer.
So, I agree on all six points. OTOH, if compared in equal terms.. (You don't
test a Maserati on sand, and compare that to a Volvo on a hardened road)

>Compilers are very smart nowadays; I suspect it doesn't matter anymore
>what [compiled] language you use -- it's the compiler that does the
>magic.  Thus, assembly vs C vs Pascal is not a valid comparison
>anymore. It's Borland's compiler vs Microsoft compiler vs whatever...
From this angle, an interpreted language could beat the hare.. Find me
an optimized turtle, and we race!

Bottom line; you don't write complete projects in ASM. One would write
the small pieces wich are often used - Comparing the languages this way,
I see a big advantage over ASM - IF used under the right conditions,
and by an abled programmer (not me ;-)

For writing your next news-reader, I suggest an optimized and higher
language. For small and often used calculations (e.g. Power, Log etc)
I prefer asm.. If I were an asm-programmer that is..

>my $.02
>Dima
Your contribution is appreciated much more than that :)


Eddy Vluggen
vluggen@cuci.nl