Xref:	news2.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:4394
From:	ghiggins AT direct DOT ca (Geoffrey Higginson)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Compiled Sprites (ASM or C?)
Date:	Thu, 30 May 1996 16:52:22 GMT
Organization:	Canada Internet Direct, Inc.
Lines:	15
Message-ID:	<4okj5j$5pj@orb.direct.ca>
References:	<Pine DOT VUL DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 960529102934 DOT 8564A-100000 AT zeus DOT adv-boeblingen DOT de>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	vic-as-01a06.direct.ca
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Lennart Steinke <steinke AT zeus DOT adv-boeblingen DOT de> wrote:

>	Is the speed difference between 
>a "real" compiled sprite (ASM code) and a
>hardcoded sprite (C) that large?
>
>	Using C code would have the advantage of
>portability... 

While compiling directly to machine language allows the compile
to be done at run-time, thus trading startup time for disk space.
It's also easier to work with the graphics when all format changes
can be done in memory.  (Unless, of course, you've got a C or
ASM compiler built into your program.)

- Raw text -