Mail Archives: opendos/1997/09/21/16:03:08
On Sun, 21 Sep 1997, -= ArkanoiD =- wrote:
> > > > C and ASM. Borland C, MS C, Watcom, TurboC, and about 50
> > > > assemblers. Oh, and a partridge in a pear tree...
> > > > (roughly taken from the FAQ.) IMHO there is TOO MUCH ASM in the
> > > > tree.
> > >
> > > Kernel must be total in the ASM, or you lost efficiency. B-|
> >
> > Hahaha! Good one!! ROTFLMAO! Linux is 99% plain C code and is a
> > heck of a lot more efficient and powerful than ANY DOS! HAHHAHA.
>
> IMHO you are missing the point completely: Unixlike OSes and
> highly machine-dependant systems are two different things: what is required
> for the first case could be inacceptable for second.. Linux is great,but
> you will never see linux with non-overlay kernel that takes ~40Kb RAM.
> Using "99% plain C" will cause memory and performance overheads so big that..
> it would be better to use Unix and not to re-invent it.
>
> More ASM - better performance. Have you seen Linewars II game?
Oh, I don't deny that ASM is faster, and that something
completely written in highly optimized ASM will undoubtedly be
faster than something written in any other language. HOWEVER,
ASM isn't necessary for everything. Have you read Michael
Abrash's books? I used to code 99% ASM, until I learned better.
No, I haven't seen Linewars II, where can I get it? Free? Or is
it commercial? I'm always interested in something new.
Take care.
Mike A. Harris | Homepage: http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris
Computer Consultant | Am I online? - finger or ping capslock.dyn.ml.org
My dynamic address: http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris/ip-address.html
Mark should get a sound card and more ISA slots!!!!!!!! ;o)
- Raw text -