Re: [cc65] Latest Snapshot - Apple II

From: Bill Buckels <bbuckels1mymts.net>
Date: 2014-05-19 18:02:22
Groepaz said:

>i tried it for a minute, and then rewrote the program so it doesnt need 
>seek, because that worked a whole lot better :)

:)

Posted in another thread.

DLOSHOW in Aztec C65 - 25,930 bytes
DLOSHOW in cc65 - 9,001 bytes

These two programs are almost identical except for the missing seek 
function.in the cc65 version. Since the overhead between closing and opening 
a file in cc65 is roughly the same as rewinding a file in Aztec C65 (or the 
stack overhead in Aztec C65 may even make seeking slower).

The performance of the cc65 version seems quite a lot snappier. However 
without the Aztec C work on this, I wouldn't have been able to write the 
better program because3 I wouldn't have been able to understand what could 
be done differently in terms of internal decomposition to make it work so 
well in cc65.

Programming skill is much more important than any function. This cc65 
compiler is not much of a toy so I smile at your smile, since I know from 
our times together that many programmers could not have done what you can 
do. I think seek and fseek are needed, but perhaps as some optional library 
call in a different segment where they don't disturb our geniuses.

Bill




----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
Received on Mon May 19 18:02:57 2014

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2014-05-19 18:02:59 CEST