In article <3c0f558d.1210938@news.povray.org> , ken### [at] uniplanit (Angelo 
'kENpEX' Pesce) wrote:

> Mhm, why asm-optimization where not acceptable, and something that
> involves translating stuff into native-code asm is acceptable now?

It isn't that hard to understand, really...

Lets say you have a function foo.  You want to write it in assembler.  So
you end up with an assembler version of function foo that has to be in the
source code, right?  For each and every platform you need this, and you need
to clutter all the code with it.

Contrary to this, a JIT compiler works on a provided intermediate data.  It
is very clean to interface the intermediate format interpreter/VM with a
platform specific optional compiler.  You do not need to clutter the source
code of every platform.  And you force no platform dependent code into the
platform independent code.

Get the difference?

Of course, somebody previously told you the answer to this already:  If you
can improve an algorithm, from say O(n^2) to O(log n) you gain far more than
one or two percent you would get from writing the O(n^2)  algorithm in
assembler.  However, with assembler you introduce unnecessary and unreadable
clutter for no good reason this way.

Get the difference now?
If not, try to think about Donald E. Knuth's famous quote again.

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message