Of course it's probably not very good

Hello,GriV efficient (in terms of memory costs) - use symbolic names for work with p/n ROM :D (I would even say more :D) however, at least it has the right to life because such functions will never overlap each other. For example: call PrintChar And if you take the faceless one RST 16 defb 81 defb 12 then the one who will write such a clause will need to hold it in his hands reference book to look at the correspondence between the called function and its bytes descriptors (the same defb) - such work should be performed not by a programmer, but car. And remembering the symbolic name PrintChar is easier in any case. In addition, symbolic names compress well (5 bits are used out of 8, even if take special characters, then 6 bits out of 8, or, say, process them with Huffman), so a three-character name will eat up almost as much space as a call via DefB. P.S. By overlapping I mean the ability to call different functions while same syntax - PrintChar or not translated at all, because there is no such functions, or will broadcast wonderfully. Rst Defb Defb when changing the set of functions will have to be monitored. The first Defb is responsible for a group of functions - if after updating the version it happened that the group expanded beyond 256 function values, then you will have to reserve another group number and this in your turn smut and smut