Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-

Why assembler is faster?

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 6:24

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 6:43

Becaust the people who still program in ASM are better than you.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 6:48

Gee, you sure got told, >>1.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 6:54

>>1
If you have to ask this question, you're not educated enough to understand the answer.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 7:36

Because everything else uses a small subset of its functionality.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 7:38

Because computers speak assembly as their natural language. No matter how hard you try, you are not going to be better in a foreign language than in your native language.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 7:41

It's like, a computer sees a C for loop, and thinks, ``oh, a for loop, so I have to put a label, let's see, here, a jmp here and put the instructions in-between''. When you feed it ASM, it thinks ``oh, this label goes here, this jmp here, okay''. At least that's how I explained it to my son.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 7:43

So that /prog/ would be trolled.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 7:52

It's not as fast as Scheme.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 7:53

>>1
It's not necessarily faster.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 8:09

because asm is written by humans, which means that it can be tweaked and optimised specifically for the given task.
other languages are translated into asm by the computer before they are able to be run, which means that their optimisations and such are alot more generalised.

if someone who sucks at asm writes a program it may be slower than the compiler generated code. it depends on the author's skill level

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 10:47

>>11
Racist.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 11:17

>>7
You're poor soon.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 11:24

>>13
what about his "you are poor soon"?

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 11:59

>>14
He's talking in MACHINE LANGUAGE.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 13:48

>>7
YSHBT

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 15:43

Not going into much detail, because compilers suck ass. Really. They are terrible.

Can you think about some trivial optimization? Well, chances are no compiler implemented it.

Most compilers rock at completely useless optimizations, the kind of high level stuff that can be fixed in the source language already (common subexpressions, dead code, algebraic simplifications...) but their code generation is an embarrassing joke.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 15:50

>>17
and you probably use all those trivial optimizations to make your program 0.00001% faster, while ignoring the higher level optimizations that could make it 50% faster.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 16:40

Why assembler is faster?
Why yes, assembler IS faster.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 17:48

Just because GCC is a shitty compiler doesn't mean other compilers don't suck. Intel C++ and MSVC++ are far superior at code generation and optimization, especially with with their profile guided optimizers.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 18:59

>>18
Your a fucking moron.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 20:32

assembler is the ONLY language that your computer speaks - ofcourse it's the fastest.
your computer has no idea how to run Python or Java code without it being translated into assembler

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 20:34

>>22
5/10

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 20:55

good luck succesfully optimising your x86 asm code since the processor is just goin to further optimize the microcodes. optimization for the most part these days is pointless and obsolete

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 21:03

>>24
Sure, if you're looking for a flimsy excuse to not do any work.  The fact remains that handwritten assembly is often several times faster than anything you can get out of a C compiler.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 21:28

>>25
have fun handwriting your assembly i prefer to type it into my computer

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 21:59

I'm still raging over ``assembler'' being used to refer to assembly. I hope this is a troll thread.

Name: Haxus the Great !HAXUS.HBkU 2009-03-21 22:01

>>27
But the assmebly is used to compiler assmelber code, you dummass.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 22:02

Also, your computer speaks machine language, not assembly. It's not the same thing, people. IHBT

Name: Haxus the Great !HAXUS.HBkU 2009-03-21 22:03

>>29
what do you call the assmelber then? machine code.. machine language.. it's means the same

Name: Haxus the Great !HAXUS.HBkU 2009-03-21 22:11

that's right, Haxus the Great prevails once more

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 22:31

>>27
Of course it is a troll thread. The OP didn't even bother to write out anything but the title of this thread. Also, IHBT, YHBT, WHBT

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 22:34

>>33
WASFTC

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-21 23:21

>>20
I don't know about ICC but MSVC is, although much better than Gucci, still pretty bad compared to what a human brain can do. There do not seem to be any compilers out there that can optimize register usage across the whole program, something that can greatly improve speed and space.

I've seen lots of little "WTF" moments when decompiling MSVC-compiled code. Things like clearing a register, then clearing it again even though it could never change between the two, useless pushes/pops, etc.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-22 0:13

>>34
not seem to be any compilers out there that optimize register usage across the whole program
it might have something to do with the fact that such a problem is NP-Harrd

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-22 0:54

>>35
just brute force it. it's not too hard.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-22 1:16

>>36
NP-Harrd
brute force
The fuck are you thinking? HIBT?

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-22 2:02

>>37
BRUTE FORCE MY ANUS
It gets me NP-Harrd!

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-23 20:31

Learn assembly, then write and compile a non-trivial program in (for example) C, and use your platform's disassembler on it. It's pretty damn obvious.

Also, IHBT.

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-03 0:14


Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List