> There's a similar code for words (no div/mul). Managing > signed fata is > just a matter of a hand of instructions more. > For dwords, I have no assembler optimized code, it's a bit > more > complicated. > On avoiding duplicate code: small assembler routines will > never not > cost more than the code you will add to deal with the same > data type, > in JAL or whatever you chose.
I agree. > The Delphi format routine is mainly written in assembler. > On assembler understanding for novices: if the library > works, the > novice will not have any interrest to understand how it > works inside. > Only the interface matters. I agree. > IMHO Library developpers shall have some skills in > assembler, else the > libraries are often fat and slow, despite of any optimizing > qualities > of any good compiler. I agree. But your and my opinion are not the rules of the world... People want to have the libs in JAL, readable and working. I can live with that at least so far that I don't have to start my own, "better" jallib project. And I don't try to tell a lot of people that I take benefit from their work but they did a bad job. The libs are working, and in most cases they do their work "good enough". If one doesn't, I'll improve the lib or put an optimized replacement in the program that needs that. Greets, Kiste -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib?hl=en.
