Author: Mike Hood
Date: 16:51:33 05/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 05, 2004 at 18:35:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 05, 2004 at 18:30:11, Mike Hood wrote: > >>I accept your point, Bob. Reading existing files takes much more time than >>trying to open non-existent files, so the savings from optimizing the >>initialisation code might not be noticeable. >> >>Maybe my own programming background has corrupted me. I've worked 15 years >>programming car electronics, and I've had to optimize every last assembler >>command to avoid any delay in the fuel injection. If you're working with >>Windows, who cares about making software run faster? Whatever savings you make >>will be killed by the next operating system version. >> >>Or am I being too sarcastic? >> >>:) > >I wouldn't disagree. I did lots of that kind of process-control stuff in the >past, and usually the vendor wanted to use a 2 dollar part when a 3 dollar part >would have made the programming much less time-critical... Too true. The most extreme case I experienced was a control unit for BMW, back in the 1980s. We were using an 8-bit processor (an 8051 derivative), but some smart thinker realised that money could be saved by only using 4 address lines to access the data area. So every time I read a byte I had to read the upper 4 bits, shift them, then read the lower 4 bits and do an OR. The same game in reverse for writing a data byte. And then my bosses complained that my software was running too slow.....
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.