06-08-2010, 02:54 AM
*chuckle* Sometimes I think I'm your biggest fan, and biggest critic all rolled into one.
(Never EVER think I don't love compiler and believe it is awesome, because I do).
And I /really/ don't want it to be a low level language at all. I'm coding library options so people don't have to do that for things like graphics.
I don't even really want a vector (though it's an interesting idea, and it might grow on me; especially (now I consider it) for text based data) - but I do want the produced assembler as efficient as possible for a given basic input code. That's what my focus has been comparing it with other compilers.
Here, for example, I'm talking about the compiler adding to its complexity and taking sinclair basic arrays and choosing to make complex code for a complex multidimensional array, or faster simpler code method for a simple one dimensional array - that is, it codes it like Hisoft Basic's method if it's one D.
Is that not possible - have two code style options for arrays; and one be faster? I'm not even talking about using tables and choosing it for ALL arrays, I'm talking about the compiler looking at the code and saying
1> hey, this array was defined as one dimension AND it is smaller than a register, so I'll use register B to index it while we're in there....
2> hey, this array was defined as one d and it needs BC to index it. Okay, I can do that.
3> ooh, this is a three dimensional array, well, I have code for that, even if it's slower...
That sort of thing. You seem stuck on the idea that all arrays have to be treated with the same methods....
I like the flexibility - but unless I'm completely mistaken, this could produce code as fast (or faster) than the fastest compiler we tested AND still have the option to be more flexible (which costs speed).
How is that wanting the /language/ to change to a lower level syntax? In each case the syntax is DIM a(5) or DIM a(5,3,4,3) - I want the compiler to be smarter; not the language syntax to be more complex!
(Never EVER think I don't love compiler and believe it is awesome, because I do).
And I /really/ don't want it to be a low level language at all. I'm coding library options so people don't have to do that for things like graphics.
I don't even really want a vector (though it's an interesting idea, and it might grow on me; especially (now I consider it) for text based data) - but I do want the produced assembler as efficient as possible for a given basic input code. That's what my focus has been comparing it with other compilers.
Here, for example, I'm talking about the compiler adding to its complexity and taking sinclair basic arrays and choosing to make complex code for a complex multidimensional array, or faster simpler code method for a simple one dimensional array - that is, it codes it like Hisoft Basic's method if it's one D.
Is that not possible - have two code style options for arrays; and one be faster? I'm not even talking about using tables and choosing it for ALL arrays, I'm talking about the compiler looking at the code and saying
1> hey, this array was defined as one dimension AND it is smaller than a register, so I'll use register B to index it while we're in there....
2> hey, this array was defined as one d and it needs BC to index it. Okay, I can do that.
3> ooh, this is a three dimensional array, well, I have code for that, even if it's slower...
That sort of thing. You seem stuck on the idea that all arrays have to be treated with the same methods....
I like the flexibility - but unless I'm completely mistaken, this could produce code as fast (or faster) than the fastest compiler we tested AND still have the option to be more flexible (which costs speed).
How is that wanting the /language/ to change to a lower level syntax? In each case the syntax is DIM a(5) or DIM a(5,3,4,3) - I want the compiler to be smarter; not the language syntax to be more complex!