🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7150@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
   In article <1990Nov27.004859.16630@cs.umu.se> dvljhg@cs.umu.se (J|rgen Holmberg) writes:
   > You can write a fairly complex, fast game in C. If you want to program
   > something like the what psygnosis, bitmap brothers, random access, factor5
   > and others are putting out, with large bobs and lots of other stuff taking
   > raster-time you will have to go assembly at least for part of the code.

   Almost certainly true. On the other hand, very few of these games run on my
   Amiga 3000. If they were in C they would certainly be fast enough on this
   machine.

   (not to mention that Psygnosis and the Bitmap Brothers tend to specialise
   in absolutely glorious games that are extremely low in playability, but that's
   another point)

If only I knew why Peter insist on thinking that Assembler Programs
are less portable (among 68000 upward) than C programs. He is not
talking about sources, but about executables.

To make one fact 100% clear (for those who didn't know it):

The 680x0 is upward compatible. Apart from some quite uncommon (and
pretty useless) instructions any legal 68000 code is also legal 68030
code. That is the whole point about having 680x0 in all the amigas.

A correct 68000 program runs unchanged on a 68030.

What Peter obviously means are dirty hacks. They don't work on all
machines / OS combinations. But that is a totally different issue.
Ugly hacks can be done in (almost) any language.

I've explained that before to him, but obviously he didn't listen.

Please stop making that silly claim.

        Carl Edman


Theorectical Physicist,N.:A physicist whose  | Send mail
existence is postulated, to make the numbers |  to
balance but who is never actually observed   | cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu
in the laboratory.                           | edmanc@uciph0.ps.uci.edu