Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 19:28:07 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Arthur <arfa AT clara DOT net>
cc: DJGPP Mailing List <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: RE: should i bother learning asm?? or just learn dx?
In-Reply-To: <000101bdc3a4$2e056400$7a4d08c3@arthur>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980809192614.29878E-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 9 Aug 1998, Arthur wrote:

> Almost every game has some ASM in there somewhere. Anyway, isn't it about time
> they optimised their code? By the looks of some of today's games, they havn't thought
> of optimising until after their deadline.

And what's wrong with that?  If the game's performance is satisfactory, 
just use -O2 and never look back.

> Hark back to the good old days of the C64, A500, Atari ST. Programmers then used to
> spend 50% of the time writing the game and 50% of the time optimising it (yes, after
> they'd written it). For that reason most games ran like the clappers, and pushed the
> hardware to the very limits.

One of the main reasons for that was that the compilers couldn't optimize 
very well back then.  Now it's different.