games - coding related question

[gntavelis]

Guys i am reading all the comments But with no experience i don't have something to say I was watching today an Amiga demo for OCS/ecs chip Sunglasses at night from ghostown (a polish demo group i am sure that everybody knows it) and at the end credits i have read that the demo was written in C. Dont get me wrong, i believe that this demo was absolutely brilliant but if it was written in asm it wouldn't be faster?

[Daedalus]

Originally Posted by meynaf

The point is precisely that it does not make any difference in which language it is written.

So in short it's an abstraction layer for beginners...

Nice. Not sure if it's that's an invalid generalisation or a broad-sweeping insult, so I'll presume the former.

Anyway, does that not make you a beginner too for wishing to use OpenGL, rather than writing GPU bytecode yourself?

There are things that can be done in ASM and not in another language.
But there is nothing other languages can do, that ASM can't.

Indeed, I never claimed otherwise.

Frameworks for high-level languages do too many things, a lot more than what's needed - and in a more complicated manner than should be.

Not sure what your point is here. The example was to do text output, something that doesn't require any complicated frameworks on any platform I've coded on.

Well, you don't write asm because you believe it's hard, and thus your asm skills remain low so it indeed is hard.

My experience has shown that it's hard, it's not a mere belief. And I don't have the thousands of hours to spare that it would take to get to your oh so superior level of skill, if that were possible at all. So yes, it remains hard, but by choosing a language better suited to my abilities, at least I can produce something that gives me satisfaction, rather than pouring thousands of hours away to produce the very same thing that runs a few cycles faster and uses a few bytes less RAM.

[Daedalus]

Originally Posted by gntavelis

Guys i am reading all the comments But with no experience i don't have something to say I was watching today an Amiga demo for OCS/ecs chip Sunglasses at night from ghostown (a polish demo group i am sure that everybody knows it) and at the end credits i have read that the demo was written in C. Dont get me wrong, i believe that this demo was absolutely brilliant but if it was written in asm it wouldn't be faster?

Yes, it most likely would be faster. Or it might not exist at all depending on the coder.

[gntavelis]

Originally Posted by Daedalus

Yes, it most likely would be faster. Or it might not exist at all depending on the coder.

Well said Daedalus

[meynaf]

Originally Posted by Daedalus

Nice. Not sure if it's that's an invalid generalisation or a broad-sweeping insult, so I'll presume the former.

Neither. It rather looks like a big misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by Daedalus

Anyway, does that not make you a beginner too for wishing to use OpenGL, rather than writing GPU bytecode yourself?

Speaking about invalid generalisation, GPU bytecode != 68k asm.

Originally Posted by Daedalus

Not sure what your point is here. The example was to do text output, something that doesn't require any complicated frameworks on any platform I've coded on.

Setting up a DirectX output is a magnitude more complicated than opening an Intuition screen in asm. And i wouldn't even know how to setup a gfx output with .net.

Originally Posted by Daedalus

My experience has shown that it's hard, it's not a mere belief. And I don't have the thousands of hours to spare that it would take to get to your oh so superior level of skill, if that were possible at all. So yes, it remains hard, but by choosing a language better suited to my abilities, at least I can produce something that gives me satisfaction, rather than pouring thousands of hours away to produce the very same thing that runs a few cycles faster and uses a few bytes less RAM.

It's not just about a few cycles and a few bytes ram - it's usually 2-4 times, often more. And the time taken - not thousands of hours. So perhaps it's worth trying a little harder.

[Daedalus]

Originally Posted by meynaf

Neither. It rather looks like a big misunderstanding.

Fair enough, it appeared that you were equating people who don't code in ASM with "beginners". Perhaps you could explain what you actually meant then.

Speaking about invalid generalisation, GPU bytecode != 68k asm.

Obviously, but you're not trying hard enough if you don't want to learn it. See?

Setting up a DirectX output is a magnitude more complicated than opening an Intuition screen in asm. And i wouldn't even know how to setup a gfx output with .net.

yep, because the underlying systems are a magnitude more complicated than Intuition. But again, you don't need either for a simple text output.

It's not just about a few cycles and a few bytes ram - it's usually 2-4 times, often more.

Absolutely. So my install script compiler could compile a script in 0.5 seconds instead of 1.5 seconds? And do it in 100KB of RAM instead of 300KB? These are figures that would be absolutely critical to a game, but almost utterly inconsequential in small utilities like that, and certainly not worth spending hundreds of extra hours developing. Besides, if I had to learn ASM to do it, it would never have existed so this leaner, more efficient version is entirely theoretical.

And the time taken - not thousands of hours. So perhaps it's worth trying a little harder.

Again, you massively underestimate how difficult it is because of your personal viewpoint of ultimate mastery. Even if it's just hundreds of hours, that's less productive use of my spare time, which might only be a couple of hundred hours a year in total. It's not a case of not trying hard enough, it's a conscious decision to actually do something that I enjoy, rather than spend a year or more learning how to do something that. You really can't understand that not everyone has your mindset, can you?

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by meynaf

I've written many little tools in asm, some even for a task that had to run only once. Everyone can show examples, this leads nowhere.

As much as I love 68k asm, for me C is still easier (although I still only use it for small utilities).

Now here's a funny one: There are people who think that you write better, faster code in C, and that you can't do a big project in assembly language. No, really, I'm not making this up

[meynaf]

Originally Posted by Daedalus

Fair enough, it appeared that you were equating people who don't code in ASM with "beginners". Perhaps you could explain what you actually meant then.

The word "beginners" was poorly chosen, but the thing is that at some point, high level languages cease to be a good choice.

Originally Posted by Daedalus

Obviously, but you're not trying hard enough if you don't want to learn it. See?

But 68k asm is easy to use, not gpu bytecode. I wouldn't defend asm on x86, arm, ppc, or anything like that !

Originally Posted by Daedalus

yep, because the underlying systems are a magnitude more complicated than Intuition. But again, you don't need either for a simple text output.

You spoke about vanilla 320x256x5. Setting the display is the problem here.

Originally Posted by Daedalus

Absolutely. So my install script compiler could compile a script in 0.5 seconds instead of 1.5 seconds? And do it in 100KB of RAM instead of 300KB? These are figures that would be absolutely critical to a game, but almost utterly inconsequential in small utilities like that, and certainly not worth spending hundreds of extra hours developing. Besides, if I had to learn ASM to do it, it would never have existed so this leaner, more efficient version is entirely theoretical.

That really depends what these utilities do, and on which machine.
The utility can still be small and operate on large data, and then it has better execute fast and not waste memory.

Your argument can also be returned. If the utility is small, then it's quick to write and doing that in 5 or 10 mins isn't a big deal...

Originally Posted by Daedalus

Again, you massively underestimate how difficult it is because of your personal viewpoint of ultimate mastery. Even if it's just hundreds of hours, that's less productive use of my spare time, which might only be a couple of hundred hours a year in total. It's not a case of not trying hard enough, it's a conscious decision to actually do something that I enjoy, rather than spend a year or more learning how to do something that. You really can't understand that not everyone has your mindset, can you?

If you believe asm is hard, then it will. If you believe it's not, then it won't.

What you don't see, too, is that asm programming isn't improductive even if you prefer to code in something else. As you will know more of what the code really does, and become a better programmer overall. Asm experience is good for other languages.

[gimbal]

Originally Posted by meynaf

Why would someone want to do 3D without OpenGL or DirectX ?

Because they can basically. I know a few people who are so in love with the math optimization aspect of it, its a challenge to get as much done with software rendering as possible. The passion to stick to the metal should be familiar to people duking it out in this thread

[Daedalus]

Originally Posted by meynaf

The word "beginners" was poorly chosen, but the thing is that at some point, high level languages cease to be a good choice.

And that point is way beyond most normal software unless resources are far more critical than developer time, as is the case with certain tasks and games.

But 68k asm is easy to use, not gpu bytecode. I wouldn't defend asm on x86, arm, ppc, or anything like that !

Again, you think it's easy. That doesn't make it easy, because it's not. Yes, it's nicer than other CPUs, but that doesn't make it easy either.

You spoke about vanilla 320x256x5. Setting the display is the problem here.

Twice I was talking about text output. But opening such a screen in BASIC is simpler than opening such a screen in ASM, which is simpler than opening such a screen in DirectX (by hand anyway).

That really depends what these utilities do, and on which machine.
The utility can still be small and operate on large data, and then it has better execute fast and not waste memory.

My example was a medium-sized utility that deals with a reasonable amount of data including lots of text, and with a reasonably complicated multi-window MUI interface. Honestly, most of its compile time is actually disk access, so even if its speed was quadrupled, I doubt anyone would notice that the file requester was invoked in 250us instead of 1ms.

Your argument can also be returned. If the utility is small, then it's quick to write and doing that in 5 or 10 mins isn't a big deal...

No matter how small the utility, I will write it quicker in C or BASIC than ASM, though I really am not sure what you're trying to get at there.

If you believe asm is hard, then it will. If you believe it's not, then it won't.

*sigh* Again with the "believe". My "belief" is based on my own personal experience with ASM, which you seem to want to ignore, along with a lot of my points. Well, it's clear to see you genuinely don't care about anyone's point of view here but your own, so I won't waste my time in this useless discussion any more.

I bow down to your infinite wisdom meynaf, and I only wonder how many millions of applications more we would have now if only we'd not bothered with high level languages. Who knows, maybe AmigaOS would be the Windows of today, if only they'd listened to you.

[alpine9000]

I wrote my first game in ASM, my next games are mainly C. Much faster (for me) to develop in C.

[meynaf]

Originally Posted by Daedalus

And that point is way beyond most normal software unless resources are far more critical than developer time, as is the case with certain tasks and games.

"Normal software" today won't run on 68k.

Originally Posted by Daedalus

Again, you think it's easy. That doesn't make it easy, because it's not. Yes, it's nicer than other CPUs, but that doesn't make it easy either.

What is so special in it, that makes it so hard then ?

Originally Posted by Daedalus

Twice I was talking about text output. But opening such a screen in BASIC is simpler than opening such a screen in ASM, which is simpler than opening such a screen in DirectX (by hand anyway).

Yes, but as soon as you have reusable code the situation changes. I can open a screen in just 4 lines of ASM.

Originally Posted by Daedalus

My example was a medium-sized utility that deals with a reasonable amount of data including lots of text, and with a reasonably complicated multi-window MUI interface. Honestly, most of its compile time is actually disk access, so even if its speed was quadrupled, I doubt anyone would notice that the file requester was invoked in 250us instead of 1ms.

Concentrating on a single example is called cherry-picking.
I can do the same.
I have a project which source is 4megs. It takes so much time and memory to assemble that it was not even doable with vasm (written in C) on my A1200. But PhxAss (written in Asm) handles it fine.

Originally Posted by Daedalus

No matter how small the utility, I will write it quicker in C or BASIC than ASM, though I really am not sure what you're trying to get at there.

You are saying basically that 250µs or 1ms doesn't make much of a difference. But 5 mins to write something in C or 10 mins to write it in asm, doesn't make much of a difference either.

Originally Posted by Daedalus

*sigh* Again with the "believe". My "belief" is based on my own personal experience with ASM, which you seem to want to ignore, along with a lot of my points. Well, it's clear to see you genuinely don't care about anyone's point of view here but your own, so I won't waste my time in this useless discussion any more.

Yes it's a belief. A very common belief, but still a belief.
You have seen the start of the path and make conclusions about how it looks like everywhere. But only the learning part of ASM is harder - and not a waste of time because it helps with other languages as well.

Originally Posted by Daedalus

I bow down to your infinite wisdom meynaf, and I only wonder how many millions of applications more we would have now if only we'd not bothered with high level languages. Who knows, maybe AmigaOS would be the Windows of today, if only they'd listened to you.

Are you becoming condescending ?
We wouldn't have more applications now, but less. However they wouldn't need such the high hardware requirements they have today.
Consider an operating system that needs several gigabytes for its own usage. Is this normal ? No it's not.
It's not necessarily the fault of high level languages by themselves. But those who know just that, or don't care, produce bloatwares.

[Thorham]

Harder and easier aren't the right words. It takes me less time to write something in C than asm, even though I have far more experience with asm than C. Writing in assembly language is usually more work.

[meynaf]

If you abuse of macros it starts to look like Basic. Then it can't be really harder.
And with enough reusable code it's not much more work.

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by meynaf

If you abuse of macros it starts to look like Basic.

Horrible

Originally Posted by meynaf

And with enough reusable code it's not much more work.

Still, my experience is that asm takes more effort.

[meynaf]

Originally Posted by Thorham

Horrible

If having asm look like another language is horrible, doesn't that mean other languages are horrible

Originally Posted by Thorham

Still, my experience is that asm takes more effort.

Instead of endlessly discussing here, perhaps we could take a few examples and make concrete comparisons on a dedicated thread. While Asm may take more efforts than Basic, for C this does not apply.

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by meynaf

If having asm look like another language is horrible, doesn't that mean other languages are horrible

No, but messing around with macros in this way is something I don't like.

Originally Posted by meynaf

Instead of endlessly discussing here, perhaps we could take a few examples and make concrete comparisons on a dedicated thread. While Asm may take more efforts than Basic, for C this does not apply.

Sounds like a plan

[commodorejohn]

Originally Posted by meynaf

Why would someone want to do 3D without OpenGL or DirectX ?

Because it means never having to learn OpenGL or DirectX

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by commodorejohn

Because it means never having to learn OpenGL or DirectX

That bad, huh?