Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

FPC for DOS / FreeDOS (DOSX)

posted by marcov, 12.04.2008, 14:38

> > Actually VB and VB.NET are afaik still the most used development tools.
> Not from my perspective, and certainly not in Linux or *BSD lands.
True. But *nix overly biassed towards C (and its successor C++), due them evoluating with eachother. It is not a logical measuring rod for languages.

> I think you overestimate the work involved. You can use external libraries
> just as in C. You don't have to reinvent the wheel for every project.
It's more managing the size of the code that I'm worried about. That often is connected with the compiler checking the code.

One can of course do something to manage that (as is done in high tech environemnts were assembler is still used, e.g. to develop firmwares), but those methods are awfully labourous and costly. And at least they have a reason (if you have 20000000 products, saving two cents for a microchip with less flash is useful. But they don't run FreeDOS :-)

> > Note also that an assembler is fairly simple compared to a full
> production
> > level compiler.
>
> An assembler could be simpler than a compiler, but it isn't always.
> I would certainly not consider NASM or FASM "simple." They are very
> powerful.

Because they provide a minor macro system? So do most compilers, and most mature ones have a complete inline assembler built in. Often with lots of extensions to interface with the HLL (e.g. structure access)

> Sure, a raw assembler that didn't do any macros, preprocessor
> tricks, etc., only raw instruction/opcode conversion would be simpler than
> trying to be POSIX and ANSI C compliant.
I'm talking about compilers here. POSIX is an operating system minimal standard, and ansi C is a minimal standard for a compiler. They however says nothing about what an average compiler has.

> (Gah, stupid Windows, "Updated blah, do you want to reboot ... [counts
> down from 5 min. if I don't explicitly say NO!")
Worse, if you postpone it, it will come back. At least on XP. In Vista you can luckily shut it up.

> It is indeed useful for speed and size reasons. C is not as fast as
> assembly and definitely not optimal.

That is a very crude remark, which is btw false from most perspectives.

The average x86 assembler is systematically slower than the corresponding C code. Simply because it has assumptions to keep it managable, it was originally for an older version of the architecture (how much cmov do you use? And do you always test for, and then use SSE2 to move memory?)

Only a very small core of very highly optimized and frequently updated assembler is actually faster.

> (Although C compilers ain't
> that bad anymore.) You do indeed have to tweak a lot if you want
> speed (which adds up).
Well, the tweaking being optional is the point of a HLL in the first place.

> And anything ever is? No, but assembly is no worse. Heck, if you really
> want, just mix the two and have the "best of both worlds."
Nearly all runtime libraries have an assembler code somewhere for that reason, with primitives that greatly influence speed. (like memcpy, strscan etc). But that is something else than developing APPS in it.

> It has its uses. And some people prefer it. It all depends what you want
> and how much you know.
See my other mail. People can do what they want to. They can even wave away productivity comments with a "I like the puzzle side of assembler". It is the totally crooked justifications that madden me.

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22755 Postings in 2121 Threads, 402 registered users (0 online)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum