Jan 9 2003, 4:49 pm
In response to Druin
|
|
Spuzzum
 |
If you're going for full optimisation, no -- full optimization means rewriting a procedure in assembly language, and that's about as unreadable as you can get. If you're going for greater optimisation, then yes -- you can reduce the length of things and still make them plenty readable.
|
Whitespace helps me becuase I go cross-eyed looking at complicated code thats close together. I have bad eye-sight thats supposedly uncorrectable. Whitespace is my freind.
| |
Writing machine code directly (in binary or hexidecimal) offers no benefit in speed over writing assembly code. The assembly gets translated exactly as you write it into machine language--each assembly command has an exact correspondance to a machine instruction.
-AbyssDragon | |
AbyssDragon wrote:
Writing machine code directly (in binary or hexidecimal) offers no benefit in speed over writing assembly code. The assembly gets translated exactly as you write it into machine language--each assembly command has an exact correspondance to a machine instruction. Well I don't think you're going to get more speed by typing in hex but most asemblers combine some op codes. Like the Mov command(or whatever the asembler likes to call it). Usually you have Mov command followed by a register then an address/register. When it gets converted to machine code each Mov and register combo has it's own op code. | |
I just took a course in Assembly, and I have decided I will not become an Assembly programmer :p
My instructor liked putting long procedures on tests and making us figure out what they were doing, and what the purpose of it was (more difficult than it may sound). Even a multiplication procedure can be hard to spot, the bit twidling and the final result are basically the only things I know to look for now. | |