Xref: news2.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:4394
From: ghiggins AT direct DOT ca (Geoffrey Higginson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Compiled Sprites (ASM or C?)
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 16:52:22 GMT
Organization: Canada Internet Direct, Inc.
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <4okj5j$5pj@orb.direct.ca>
References: <Pine DOT VUL DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 960529102934 DOT 8564A-100000 AT zeus DOT adv-boeblingen DOT de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: vic-as-01a06.direct.ca
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Lennart Steinke <steinke AT zeus DOT adv-boeblingen DOT de> wrote:

>	Is the speed difference between 
>a "real" compiled sprite (ASM code) and a
>hardcoded sprite (C) that large?
>
>	Using C code would have the advantage of
>portability... 

While compiling directly to machine language allows the compile
to be done at run-time, thus trading startup time for disk space.
It's also easier to work with the graphics when all format changes
can be done in memory.  (Unless, of course, you've got a C or
ASM compiler built into your program.)