Re: WhichAsm.html
- From: Betov <betov@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 21 Nov 2006 11:48:27 GMT
"KiLVaiDeN" <kilvaiden@xxxxxxxxx> écrivait news:1164108634.871770.210590
@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
I like the words being used here : "a little faster" when RosAsm can
compile magnitudes faster than MASM, and "less than one-half the speed
of" when comparing to FASM, which is by far the fastest Assembler
around. Noobies could read this and say "omg there is no advantage to
use RosAsm.." but they don't have the real facts, they have those
twisted words which deform reality. Give speed charts, with ms
execution time, instead of giving your opinion Mr Hyde, or lose
credibility.
... For VID... By the way, VID, there is also something close
to "objective", with this, in the Assembler Comparisons:
[I say "close to", because some other Assembler do NOT have
significative Apps, that could provide significative times...]
This is with providing the Stats Timings given by each Assembler,
on Apps around 500 Ko (there _are_ some for RosAsm and FASM, at
least, and may be one for GoAsm... - but, of course, "closed Sources,
in this case, so that you would have to trust the words of the
author - ) simply saying:
"On that Processor... This Time (translated in seconds per Mega)".
Comments might be added about the level of Macros HLLisms, in
the required cases.
For RosAsm, this is around 1 Mega/Second on a Celeron 1.3,
whatever level of HLLisms.
Betov.
< http://rosasm.org >
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: WhichAsm.html
- From: vid512@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: WhichAsm.html
- References:
- WhichAsm.html
- From: vid512@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: WhichAsm.html
- From: KiLVaiDeN
- WhichAsm.html
- Prev by Date: Re: WhichAsm.html
- Next by Date: Re: WhichAsm.html
- Previous by thread: Re: WhichAsm.html
- Next by thread: Re: WhichAsm.html
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|