> From: Reggie Bautista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > The Fool wrote: > >There are less C keywords than ASM instructions. Simple is always > >better. > > >c: > [short code sample snipped] > >asm: > [longer but equivalent code sample snipped] > > Just out of curiosity -- once these examples are both compiled, will they > take up an equivalent amount of space and/or take an equivalent amount of > time to run?
They will create the _same_ machine code. > Or more generally, when programming languages include shorter ways of doing > things that previous languages, how much of that comes from the writers of > the newer languages having a better understanding of how to do things, and > how much comes from shortcuts written into the newer language that make > coding easier, but make no actual difference after compilation? You mean something like this: #define MB(x,y,z,w,q) MB+((z*(q+1)*(w+1))+(y*(w+1))+x) #define XXX(x,y,z) ((*(m.MB((x),(y),(z),(h->X),(h->Y))))) and later in the code just say a. XXX(3,14,15); which is just the same as putting b. ((*(m.MB+(((z)*((h->Y)+1)*((h->X)+1))+((y)*((h->X)+1))+(x)))))) Which is essentially a calculation for a pointer to specific integer of data in a 3 dimensional array [i.e. Matrix], (they compile to the same code); Which one do you want to work with hundreds of times in a program, a. or b.? Macros are your friends. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
