AVR-Chat

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 01:06:01PM -0000, brewski922 wrote:
> Ditto Dave.
> I am sure most C devoties would argue that to get down and dirty or 
> write the smallest and/or fast code assemble is the way to go.

I do not consider myself to be a "C devotee", altho C is among my
preferred tools. There is a big question as to just how small and how
fast is small and fast enough? On AVR, HC11, and HC12, on examination of
assembly code I have found C and assembly to be roughly equal in speed
and code density.

> And most assemble folks would say to get the program completed in the 
> least amount time and/or most cost effective do it in C.

The larger the project the more important it is to abstract parts of it,
then put it aside and forget it while working on other parts. That is
something that C does very well, and is exactly what C++ is about taking
to the next level.

When projects get big, C often generates smaller code because one was
abstracting concepts and often finds ways to reuse more portions than
the assembly programmer.

> So both of them have their strong and weak points.

There really isn't any weak point to C. The only gripes I have at times
is when a compiler calls an intrinsic function for something relatively
simple like uint32_t i++. Or for a 32 bit comparison (HCS12,
CodeWarrior). Have found there that I can put the 32 bit variable in a
union and separately compare uint16_t's in the same space and time as
the compiler can setup the intrinsic function call. But guess what? This
is exactly the sort of thing one would have to do in assembly.

-- 
David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@HiWAAY.net
========================================================================
Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.