Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    comp.sys.cbm    |    Discussion about Commodore micros    |    53,866 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 52,195 of 53,866    |
|    wwww.leser@gmail.com to All    |
|    Re: Short ML Program    |
|    02 Mar 18 10:02:03    |
      This newsgroup used to be entertaining! Where's all the fun gone?       Let me try some:              Try to imagine you didn't already have an idea as to how fast machine language       can be as compared to BASIC. Would Jim Butterfield's demonstration have       convinced you that it is worth the while learning how to do computer       programming in assembly language?        He assures us that BASIC could never fill the screen at the same rate as his       assembly program does, and that's certainly true. But is the difference really       as great as it appears from the video?              10 print chr$(19);       20 get a$       30 for i=1 to 7       40 a$=a$+a$       60 next       70 a$=left$(a$,111)       80 print a$;a$;a$;a$;a$;a$;a$;a$;a$;       90 if left$(a$,1)<>":" then 10              Can you improve upon my program above, or rewrite it, to make it run faster?       Would you take a different approach, like the following?              10 printchr$(147)       20 co=53248:ca=8448:ir=56334       30 fori=0to7:poke8192+32*8+i,0:next       40 poke53272,24       50 poke198,0:wait198,1:get a$       60 pb=co+8*(asc(a$)-64)       70 pokeir,peek(ir)and254:poke1,peek(1)and251       80 fori=0to7:pokeca+i,peek(pb+i):next       90 poke1,peek(1)or4:pokeir,peek(ir)or1       100 if a$<>":"then 50       110 poke53272,21              (Line 60 needs some work.)              Besides that, did you notice that Jim Butterfield's assembly program, too, can       be improved upon, speed-wise? Here's a hint: Most monitors' mnemonic-to-opcode       translators won't even let you not do the improvement (but VICE's monitor       will.)              Another oddity that's apparent from the video hasn't been mentioned yet: Jim       Butterfield's machine does not exhibit the Commodore 64's standard character       set. It looks more like the VIC-20(or PET?)'s character set to me. Did Jim       Butterfield use a        modified machine? Could that account somehow for the curious fact that the       very last character on screen remains blank?              Chris              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca