Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 15th Feb 2013 10:40 UTC
General Development "Since I left my job at Amazon I have spent a lot of time reading great source code. Having exhausted the insanely good idSoftware pool, the next thing to read was one of the greatest game of all time: Duke Nukem 3D and the engine powering it named 'Build'. It turned out to be a difficult experience: The engine delivered great value and ranked high in terms of speed, stability and memory consumption but my enthousiasm met a source code controversial in terms of organization, best practices and comments/documentation. This reading session taught me a lot about code legacy and what helps a software live long." Hail to the king, baby.
Permalink for comment 552648
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Code Review
by Alfman on Fri 15th Feb 2013 17:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Code Review"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

Laurence,

"These days compilers are so good at optimising that you're more likely to write better performing code in C than assembly."

There are still times when I find GCC didn't optimize something as well as it could have, especially when the C code doesn't translate directly to the desired architecture opcode (many bit manipulation, overflow flags, and multi-word-size instructions are completely absent in C). The roundabout algorithm in C will sometimes result in a roundabout assembly optimization.

That said, most of us have thrown in the towel because the business case for hand optimization skills is virtually non-existent. Most businesses are willing to let grossly inefficient code slide by if they can trade off developer costs with better hardware.

Every time this topic comes up someone else points out the the importance of optimizing the algorithm before resorting to assembly, let me preempt this by saying "I agree".

Reply Parent Score: 4