Hi Clarence, > The normal ASM to C speed factor is 3x (300%). Unless it's a contest. > The normal ASM to C size factor is 1/10 (10%). Average, all uses. > Why is FIXMEM.exe 8k ? Why is it an EXE ? > Blame it on lazy > programmers using stdio if you wish. That's all of them. <G>
I'm always intrigued by these debates about how much faster and smaller ASM is vs. C. Why should this be so? Don't all languages produce machine code in the end? If the C code is tight, why should it be 10X larger than ASM? What would all the 'extra' code be doing? As for me, I know (and like) C; I don't know ASM, but I'd sure like to learn it because, like you, I hate code bloat--whenever I see the source for some C program, I can't resist rewriting it to try to produce a smaller .exe. So here's a challenge I'd like to throw down before you in front of the whole list: I wrote a small TSR that I'm very fond of that turns the mono monitor of my dual monitor system into a very simple 'clip board' (press the hot key of your choice, and whatever is showing on the text screen of you color monitor is 'clipped' over to the mono screen -- very handy when you need to save one screenful of info. while referring to another). It's about 4K of C produced code. If you can boil it down to 10% of that using ASM, I'll not only make it my next project to learn ASM, I'll buy you lunch and all the beer you can drink next time you're in Vancouver/Van-cong/Vanistan. Up to it? I'm sure the list would enjoy the blood sport, and if you win, no one will dare doubt you again. Ray. -- Arachne V1.66, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
