5 ms·

Sure, and this lasted right up until we got GPUs, where you can take advantage of something even faster than general purpose ASM - specially developed hardware.

by RyanZAG 14y ago

Sure, and this lasted right up until we got GPUs, where you can take advantage of something even faster than general purpose ASM - specially developed hardware. The death nail in using ASM was the library. You only need to develop your ASM optimization once into GCC or a special purpose library, and then you can just happily re-use that from a maintainable language.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
stelonix 14y ago
Not really, code in low-level GPU shader language (I believe that's no longer allowed though) and compare it to HLSL. Compare intrinsics speed with inline assembly. Sadly, we live in a world where the lie that compilers can optimize better than humans is widely spread. The reality is, compilers can optmize better than your everyday-javaguy (the kind of person who believes you can just throw more processing power at a problem while the programmer just needs to abstract ad nauseam). I like using frameworks, libraries, high-level languages as much as anyone in here, but I know ASM will always be faster, just not always suitable for the issue.
- IsTom 14y ago
  It rarely matters enough to justify amount of work needed.
  - EliRivers 14y ago
    That's been true since the first compiler. There are always going to be people who want the extra speed and are willing to work for it.
DigitalJack 14y ago
Just fyi, the phrase is "death knell" not "death nail."