Reply-To: <arfa AT clara DOT net>
From: "Arthur" <arfa AT clara DOT net>
To: "DJGPP Mailing List" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: RE: should i bother learning asm?? or just learn dx?
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 18:35:03 +0100
Message-ID: <000001bdc3bc$0ad2d860$e54e08c3@arthur>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980809192614.29878E-100000@is>
Importance: Normal
Precedence: bulk

> > 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.

Hmm. There are a lot of P90 owners who would disagree with you there.

> > 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.

No, you can get GNU C++ for the ST and AFAIK it's updated regularly. In fact, it's
not the best compiler on the ST market. The fact that the ST and Amiga had only an
8MHz clock rate may have had something to do with it.

James Arthur
jaa AT arfa DOT clara DOT net
ICQ#15054819