"You Won't Believe Who Wins"
richard.smith at mewgull.com
Sat Jun 2 12:53:40 CDT 2007
At 18:31 02/06/2007, you wrote:
>Grant Stockly wrote:
>>It students today learned how to program by toggling switches,
>>maybe we'd have more people writing tight and efficient code. : )
>Would the not be *light* and efficient code instead. In some ways
>the OPERATE operation was what made the older computers have
>good code density.
>With the demise of FORTRAN and the rise of C and PASCAL/ALGOL
>style languages you need more addressing modes like R+ and
>B+R+# adressing where you have only two addressing modes mostly
>Direct short and indirect.
Forgive if this has been said before, but it's surely the
availability of oodles of cheap memory that encourages sloppy coding?
When I was ripping off Donkey Kong (the original one.......) we had
about 32Kb of ROM to store the code, and a couple of k's RAM to
handle things like sprites (remember them?).
I used to program the Z80 in machine code, on paper, taking care of
the number of clock cycles a particular instruction took and looking
to see if the same could be achieved using another instruction with a
couple less clock cycles.
That encourages tight code.
More information about the cctech