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

Pages: 1-

7 Assembler myths

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-25 2:02

1.Assembler is not flexible.
2.Assembler is conductive to writing buggy code.
3.Assembler is worse then compiler optimized code.
4.Modern CPUs ruin assembler performance.
5.Productivity of assembler is low.
6.Assembler is hard to read or understand.
7.Assembler is not portable.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-25 2:21

I don't know why you are trying to troll, by making half of them true and half of them false. Wouldn't it be easier if you just made all of them true, I would thus be able to sage faster without having to do a double take.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-25 2:34

>>2
UNOPTIMIZED SOFTWARE DETECTED

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-25 2:36

What >>2 said.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-25 3:08

in case anyone one was wondering:
true:        2, 7
false: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6

note that 3, 4, 5, and 6 are only false if you're in the top 1-2% of assembly programmers.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-25 3:12

>>1
How is 5 true? You need a lot more LoC to code in asm than in high level languages, sure you could use macros, but even so there are limitations to that, such as limiting certain optimizations you could do by writing the code manually, optimizations which some good higher level language compilers can do in some cases.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-25 3:24

>>6
If you're just doing computation, assembler is not all that verbose.

Of course, that's not where the interesting parts are.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-25 3:32

>>7
Have you read your Art Of Computer Programming today?

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-25 8:19

note that 3 and 4 are only false if you're in the top 100-200% of assembly programmers.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-25 8:45

>>9
stack overflow

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-25 10:39

Unless you need to, don't use assembler. Fuck. Think of the real problem at hand.

Name: Anonymous 2009-03-25 10:44

Myth... confirmed!

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-13 9:30

The only fun that I can possibly imagine using assembler is to code a program that can run within the L1 cache of modern microprocessor. 

Sadly, I'm not clever enough to think of any practical example of this.

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-13 9:32

3.Assembler is worse then compiler optimized code.
Assembler is worse then compiler
is worse then
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

IHBT.

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-13 12:49

>>13
1. This is stupid.
2.

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-13 18:44

>>14

You don't understand the difference between an assembled language and a compiled one still.

How quaint.

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-13 19:00

>>16
8/10

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-13 20:28

>>17
 mov ax, 8
 mov cx, 10
 div cl

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-13 21:49

>>18
[m]grab dix[/b]

Name: FrozenVoid 2009-04-14 9:25

>>14
i prefer using then, as it sounds exactly as its spoken
"worse then" not "worse thAn".

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-14 9:33

[sage]>>19[/sage]

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-14 12:32

>>20
i prefer using then, as it sounds exactly as its spoken
"worse than" not "worse thEn".

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-14 21:23

Of course ASM is portable. You only need to emulate the target hardware. With today's computing power, I don't see how this argument holds water.

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-14 22:15

>>22
you say it wrong, frenchfag.

Name: Anonymous 2010-12-17 1:31

Xarn is a bad boyfriend

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-03 6:16

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