BL> It was interesting going back to C after so long, and I can see
 BL> why people like writing the code. Pascal is verbose by
 BL> comparison (which is why it's easier to read), but I still
 BL> prefer the Pascal approach. 

 PE> Look at the generated object code to see whether the code
 PE> actually generates worse assembler.

  I've been doing that, adding up clock ticks as well as running
profiler tests, and Pascal impresses the shit out of me. It varies a
bit, but 20% off optimum ASM is about the result for small functions.
That's *very* good.

  Do you know where I can get the 286/386 instruction set? Just the
summary, listed by group: Data Transfer, Arithmetic, etc. I've still
got keith's book which is perfect, but I can't find a similar list on
the BBS. ASM editor help files go into detail, but they all seem to
assume you already know the set (which I don't) and if I don't know
the names how can I look them up? Bloody dickheads!

 PE> For .exe size comparison, you either need to strip out some of
 PE> the baggage that comes with C (or make sure you don't drag it
 PE> in!), or do a real test, which is use a big program, where the
 PE> runtime support is bugger-all. BFN. Paul. 

  I already know big C programs have smaller EXEs than Pascal, but I
was talking about small utilities in the <16K area (to annoy you).

Regards,
Bob
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
@EOT:

---