Blackfin two-word *fast* floating-point library

Started by Leon Heller July 19, 2003
Andor wrote:
> > Jerry Avins wrote: > ... > > > There are many criteria by which to measure code quality: execution > > > speed, memory requirement, upgradeability, modifiability, > > > reuasability, development speed, portability, etc. > ... > > I'd like to see, or hear of anecdotally, an optimal embedded system > > written in complete ignorance of the hardware it is to run on. > > Jerry, > > you did not read what I wrote. An optimal software solution needn't > neccessarily be the most efficiently running code. There can be other > criteria by which to measure quality. I've given a few above. > > Regards, > Andor
Andor, I guess I didn't express myself clearly. Even by the criterion of speed, often the first code to give an answer won't be the code that runs most quickly. My claim was that your claim didn't fit embedded apps. It's rare embedded code that runs only once, and the few examples I can think of (cruise-missle guidance, e.g.) need to make full use of processing resources. Note that I didn't write, or mean to imply, that faster is necessarily better. (I wrote professional code in indirect-threaded Forth to optimize maintainability, code size, and writing time, even though assembly was more than twice as fast.*) The example I asked for was useful embedded code, optimal by any standard, written in complete ignorance of the hardware it runs on. I expect that there is no example, but I hope I'm wrong. It would be a wonder to see. Jerry. P.S. The quote I claim doesn't apply to embedded work is, "Thus, you can produce optimal code and be completely ignorant of the hardware it runs on." _____________________________ * Optimized native-code Forths run about as fast as Gnu C, give or take ten percent, depending on the application and the programmer's skill. -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������