> It doesn't matter anymore. 5 years ago, maybe. But there's no real
> difference anymore. There are some exceptions however, for example
> swapping
> rgb to bgr, doing inline asm is a *little* quicker.
There's no real difference because of all the additional things that now
have to be taken into
On Mon, 2 Jun 2003 14:14:05 +1200 Phil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Aren't there tools that'll do that automatically? From what I've heard
> > the compiled ASM runs as fast as the original C++, even.
>
> ASM runs much faster than C++ because it's a lower-level programming
> language. Some could
gth - http://www.thewavelength.net
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hlcoders-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil
> Sent: June 1, 2003 10:14 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Script languages (was Re: [hlcoders] Half-Life 2:
> Programming, Hmm?)
>
>
> I am guessing this hard:
>
> $ find . -type f -name '*.cpp' -exec gcc `grep CFLAGS Makefile | sed
> 's/CFLAGS *= *//'` -S '{}' ';'
I meant manually, line for line.
-Phil
___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, ple
> Aren't there tools that'll do that automatically? From what I've heard
> the compiled ASM runs as fast as the original C++, even.
ASM runs much faster than C++ because it's a lower-level programming
language. Some could argue that it's the fastest understandable (if)
programming language.
-Phil
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 12:05:37PM +1200, Phil wrote:
> /me wonders how hard it would be to port the source to ASM...
I am guessing this hard:
$ find . -type f -name '*.cpp' -exec gcc `grep CFLAGS Makefile | sed
's/CFLAGS *= *//'` -S '{}' ';'
-
> > /me wonders how hard it would be to port the source to Java...
>
> /me wonders how hard it would be to port the source to ASM...
Aren't there tools that'll do that automatically? From what I've heard
the compiled ASM runs as fast as the original C++, even.
Exactly as fast. :p
-randomnine-
__
> Anyway, I'm sorry if that sounded arrogant. I should have added: "most
> people I talked with about that". :) I've met lots of persons who think that
> script languages are "toy languages", which is not justified by the current
> state of the art (http://home.pacbell.net/ouster/scripting.html).
> /me wonders how hard it would be to port the source to Java...
/me wonders how hard it would be to port the source to ASM...
___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit:
http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailma
> Anyway, that's all for the sake of chatting. Now we know that we'll
> be able to use C++ in HL2. Still, I think it would be great if they
> added a good script language as a second option.
/me wonders how hard it would be to port the source to Java...
-randomnine-
__
Paolo,
My post may have seemed unnecessarily harsh.
For that, I apologize.
No disrespect was intended.
Clearly, I mistook your intent.
At 11:31 AM 5/31/2003 +0200, you wrote:
>> You certainly have not conducted any sort of survey of "most
>> people" to determine what their views are or what in
>> You certainly have not conducted any sort of survey of "most
>> people" to determine what their views are or what influenced them.
>...and Michael, there's no way for you to back up the assertion that Paolo
>can't back up his assertion. Kind of a pointless argument, don't you
think? :)
Anyway
12 matches
Mail list logo
