John R. Sowden wrote: > > In order to use these old computers, we need more software written in > assembler. When the x86 based computer is more than 85% of the hardware > platforms in service today, I think writing for 'cross-platform' is a red > herring. An effort could be made to write libraries in assembler, and use > assembler for the portions of programs that are repetitive, and speed > sensitive. This would bring these older PCs back to life. 32-64 MB PCs > could be used for applications like OOo. Most of the newer features would > not be available, but the core features which are used the most would be > there. This effort would eliminate the so-called 'digital divide'. If I > can > go to a thrift store and buy a 150Mhz Pentium with 32 MB of RAM 2 GB hard > drive for $35.00, and buy a cd off the net with linux and a tiny OOo for > $10.00, there is no excuse for the 'low income' population segment to not > be > skilled in the use of the core OOo features. This would open up job > opportunities and the use of these computers in elementary/high schools. >
I retired from a job three years ago where I was mostly working with mainframes running Fortran programs. For a few applications, we still maintained Assembler subroutines as they were up to ten times faster than similar Fortran routines from which the compiler had produced fully-optimised pseudo-assembler code. The problem with assembler routines was that there were too few programmers skilled in assembler. In my time, I found that similar speed improvements could be by checking the Fortran code was written efficiently. On one occasion, I found that replacing a frequently-used implied do-loop in data input [READ (ARRAY(I),I=1,J) where J was a large variable] with a small subroutine, made the program run ten times faster. This sort of code probably has no relevance to more modern languages but I suspect that an experienced programmer in those languages could find a few samples of inefficient code. I found that a large number of programmers where I worked were only interested in getting a program working. Worrying about how fast it ran or how much space the thing gobbled up was a bit beneath them. Even something as simple as using the full optimisation of the compiler when producing a final product was not contemplated, although this simple act would produce a two- or three-fold increase in speed. I wonder if this attitude also exists in programmers for the PC. I admit that I my programming experience may not be directly relevant to languages used for writing programs for the PC but I've seen descriptions of bug-fixes and coding improvements in PC products that suggested to me that in some cases programming standards were a decade or two behind what I'd been used to. -- Graham P Davis Bracknell, Berks., UK Send e-mails to "newsman" as mails to "newsboy" are ignored. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
