4 ms·
I wasn't; back then there were a LOT of things, especially in graphics and linear algebra, that required dropping to embedded ASM to accomplish in a performant
by stonogo 6y ago
I wasn't; back then there were a LOT of things, especially in graphics and linear algebra, that required dropping to embedded ASM to accomplish in a performant way. I think Turbo- and Object Pascal were great languages, but let's not pretend they were anywhere near the speed of C.
- jeffbee 6y agoThe point of my remark here is we aren't talking about rendering text along a path or whatever. We're talking about opening a file and parsing a binary format, which is in most use cases not at all performance-sensitive.
- pjmlp 6y agoC machine code quality was just as slow as anything else on 16 bit computers, lets not pretend otherwise. Modula-2 and Pascal compilers had the necessary switches to make the languages just as unsafe as C, and anything related to ultimate performance out of 8086 and 68000 required Assembly anyway.