Rudy Velthuis wrote:
<snippety> 


> 

> I've been looking in Gravity, but almost all my news was gone (I told y
ou
> about my self-imposed 60 day limit). I couldn't find it on Dejanews eit
her.
> But I'm 100% sure I've seen it somewhere.
ok :-) Thanx anyway.
 

> >> But it was the improved algorithm which made the routine faster, not

> Pascal
> >> of course.
> 

<snappety>  


> Of course if you would implement a good algorithm in (good) assembler, 
you'd
> propably gain some more speed. This can be done for simple algos. But t
o
> optimize a huge program and rewrite it in assembler is not seeking for
> speed, it is asking for trouble (bugs). Optimizers are not perfect, but

> consistent. Humans are perhaps cleverer, but very inconsistent, make
> mistakes, forget things, etc. Optimizers do not have these human traits
.
Yup, that Is what I have said in my own little way... or tried to
anyway..

I've never done anything more advanced in asm than to transform a
highoptimized pascal routine(screen melt thingy) into asm... lost a
helluva lot of procedure-calls, and the loop was far faster as well...
 

> >But I can say that I
> >don't really enjoy BASIC as a language.
> 

> Neither do I, I'm a Delphi freak. And if, for some highly unimaginable
> reason, I would have to dispose Delphi, I'd turn to C/C++. But those da
ys,
> BBC-Basic was all I had. It even taught me procedural programming, beca
use
> it had procedures and functions and local variables.
ok. I started in BASIC on a SVI computer. Then got on to turbo-pascal
4....
 


> 

> How many Euro-Cents would that be?
Hmm, I think it's something like 0,003-0,002. But I haven't looked at
the exchange rates.

-- 

//Spider 

( spi### [at] bahnhofse ) [ http://www.bahnhof.se/~spider/ ]
#declare life = rand(seed(42))*sqrt(-1);

Post a reply to this message