Comments:	Authenticated sender is <david AT diablo DOT eimages DOT co DOT uk>
From:	"David Cantrell" <david AT diablo DOT eimages DOT co DOT uk>
Organization:	Warhead Dematerialisation Dept.
To:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Fri, 16 May 1997 11:25:32 +0000
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: OpenDOS graphics drivers
Reply-to:	NukeEmUp AT thepentagon DOT com
In-reply-to:	<199705160212.MAA19215@solwarra.gbrmpa.gov.au>
References:	<Pine DOT LNX DOT 3 DOT 95 DOT 970515025828 DOT 6880A-100000 AT 55-174 DOT hy DOT cgocable DOT ca> from "Pierre Phaneuf" at May 15, 97 03:12:24 am
Message-ID:	<1348344101-21163430@diablo.eimages.co.uk>

Leath Muller wrote:

> Ok, if 32 bit is more "efficient" then it must be "faster". No?

32-bit programming is more efficient because:

o I can easily use large data structures
o I can port code from other OSes more easily

Both of these mean that I can get the application finished sooner and 
because it is less complex there will be less bugs.  Whether the 
code runs faster or not is an entirely different matter.

My experience is also that a 16-bit compiler (MS QuickC) produces 
smaller programs than a 32-bit compiler (DJGPP with GO32.EXE
statically linked).

> If John Carmack is *so* worried about every cycle in a game, why has he
> shifted to Win32 development only?

Cos he can make pots more money that way ;-)

-- David Cantrell, http://www.thepentagon.com/nukeemup/index.html

Power is both corrupting and dangerous when unchallenged and
concentrated in the hands of the majority.  Voices of tolerance
and compassion are easily drowned.
      -- Akbar S. Ahmed

- Raw text -