and its pretty much a given that when you're doing blackart stuff like this: http://www.codeproject.com/system/soviet_protector.asp you're going to need assembler. But this discussion is about speed not functionality.
To that end....
@Promit: I'm with you all the way.
@Rockoon1: By the sounds of things you've never dealt with a code-base larger than a few hundred thousand lines, and you probably have never had a PWHC or E&Y risk audit team analyze your code and give a rating for all the things Promit mentioned (specifically the ones which have absolutely nothing to do with how fast your code is). If you provided them with massive listings of pure assembler and then told them it was to gain performance, you probably would have been blind-folded and chucked into a black GMC panel-van and never heard from again.
Quote:the assembly language programmer has the freedom to try different methodologiesfunny you should say that, because the C++ programmer from your direct market competitor is free to try out those same methodologies using a high-level language, a smart compiler and some pretty Pro tools like VTune which will tell you cool stuff like how well you're utilizing the Multilevel cache on your Intel chip... of course "the assembly programmer" could use these tools too, but, oh, wait...you need a C++ Compiler to instrument your code for VTune.
FYI> I'd love to work where Rackoon1 works, because it sounds like the chap doesn't have any deadlines.
@Skizz: I see where your rational and considered argument is coming from (and I also appreciate the fact that you can present your point without the condescending tone which Rackoon1 insists on using). Interestingly, you managed to make good use of the SIMD and Integer units in parallel, I think its only a matter of time till we're having this conversation over "hand written C++ or OpenMP5.0"? Especially now that CPU architectures like CELL B/E and AMD's new Quad cores are going to be the norm.