Groups > comp.sys.apple2.programmer > #3668

Re: C vs Asm

From	"Bill Buckels" <bbuckels@mts.net>
Newsgroups	comp.sys.apple2.programmer
Subject	Re: C vs Asm
Date	2017-07-08 07:55 -0500
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<ojqkon$1t7j$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	<cd720fd5-3bb8-4081-980b-b6c9d4e2f14f@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

<anthonypaulo@gmail.com> wrote: >I can't find the thread but I read a post 
here recommending doing all development in assembly because the C compilers 
generate bloated assembly that takes up way too much space.

It makes me wonder what kind of bloated C an assembler might generate. Maybe 
I've wasted all those years writing in C tweaking the critical parts with 
assembler and instead I could have just written in assembler and used the 
assembler to generate C code for the non-critical parts... :) JK... On 
second thought, I'll just stick with what I do...

Mixed-language WELL WRITTEN C with assembly is a more sensible general 
approach than doing all development in assembly as far as I am concerned, 
and usually far more readable from my view, which is another goal of real 
programming as far as I am concerned.

As far as 6502 cross-compilers, cc65 generates faster and smaller Apple II 
code than Aztec C, and both provide either inline assembly or linking of 
external object modules. I have written extensively on this and provided 
examples ad infinitum, so if you are interested you will find those...

Since game development was not the only development that developers in the 
80's and 90's did, it was not always necessary to write highly optimized 
code, but many of the the other self respecting developers I worked with 
avoided programming in BASUC with line numbers, and preferred working in a 
structured compiled language rather than interpreted spaghetti...

Regards,

Bill

Back to comp.sys.apple2.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

C vs Asm anthonypaulo@gmail.com - 2017-07-06 21:40 -0700
  C vs Asm Antoine Vignau <antoine.vignau@laposte.net> - 2017-07-07 03:03 -0700
  C vs Asm Antoine Vignau <antoine.vignau@laposte.net> - 2017-07-07 03:05 -0700
    C vs Asm Michael Pohoreski <michael.pohoreski@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 18:24 -0700
      Re: C vs Asm James Davis <JPD.Enterprises@outlook.com> - 2017-07-08 00:26 -0700
        Re: C vs Asm Michael Pohoreski <michael.pohoreski@gmail.com> - 2017-07-08 06:56 -0700
          Re: C vs Asm "Bill Buckels" <bbuckels@mts.net> - 2017-07-10 07:34 -0500
            Re: C vs Asm James Davis <JPD.Enterprises@outlook.com> - 2017-07-10 11:46 -0700
  Re: C vs Asm mmphosis <mmphosis@macgui.com> - 2017-07-07 16:25 +0000
    Re: C vs Asm Michael Pohoreski <michael.pohoreski@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 17:47 -0700
  Re: C vs Asm James Davis <JPD.Enterprises@outlook.com> - 2017-07-07 13:33 -0700
    Re: C vs Asm anthonypaulo@gmail.com - 2017-07-07 17:54 -0700
      Re: C vs Asm Michael Pohoreski <michael.pohoreski@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 18:04 -0700
        Re: C vs Asm qkumba <peter.ferrie@gmail.com> - 2017-07-08 08:53 -0700
  C vs Asm Michael Pohoreski <michael.pohoreski@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 17:45 -0700
    Re: C vs Asm anthonypaulo@gmail.com - 2017-07-07 18:01 -0700
      Re: C vs Asm Michael Pohoreski <michael.pohoreski@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 18:17 -0700
  Re: C vs Asm "Bill Buckels" <bbuckels@mts.net> - 2017-07-08 07:55 -0500

csiph-web