[topic tag changed to OT from PIC]

----- Original Message -----
From: "William Chops Westfield"
> The smaller the program, the easier it is to outperform a compiler using
> assembler.

Back in 1995 I got into the HLL vs LLL debate. I was programming mostly in
TPascal and x86 assembler at the time. As a test I rewrote one of my TPascal
programs in x86. The x86 program was a lot smaller and twice as quick.
However, even the "slow and large" TPascal program wasn't too bad. If it had
been a large program I would have been relucatant to write it in x86 in the
first place. That's the main problem with a LLL- the advantages become
apparant in big programs which you really wouldn't want to write soley in a
LLL unless you absolutely had to. Then again, for the PICs I write
exclusively in ASM. Now my programs are getting bigger and more complex,
however, I'm investigating branching into HLLs...

Ben
- the whole write up is still out there on a website. I didn't update the
site for a few months and forgot the password!

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads