Am I the only one who hates coding in high level languages? I can write all kinds of games and programs in 68k assembler, but I just choke all over C. It just makes more sense to deal with actual memory spaces than to mess around with pointers and libraries and shit. I don't like having to use any code that I didn't write myself.
trying writing a full scale TURNKEY ENTERPRISE SOLUTION for a LARGE MULTI-NATIONAL in ASM. You'll come begging for a garbage-collected object-oriented multi-paradigm language that allows one to follow ENTERPRISE BEST-PRACTICES.
Asm is the fastest indeed, but compilation speeds are glacial, as well it requires a human compiler.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-05 17:32
>>7
Somebody should come up with a way to computerize compilation to speed development time. Then we could let the computer handle parts that weren't speed-critical.
asm written by humans is slower than compiler generated asm unless you are some kind of superhuman asm grandmaster (PROTIP: you are not).
the whole "write your programs in assembly to make them super fast lol XDDDDD" thing is just a myth spread by people who don't know any better
>>10
Some compilers are very good, but don't underestimate human compilers, they can produce fairly decent code too if they know the CPU architecture and instruction set good enough. You know that producing 'the best' optimizing compiler is at least an NP complete problem, so you can almost always find better optimizations. Of course, few compilers produce good quality code anyway, most produce just average quality code.
P.S.: I'm not advocating people code anything in ASM, except for:
1) parts of a compiler's code generation and standard library
2) Platform specific code (such as those used in OS'es, some device drivers and so on)
3) Programs which require very high performance, such as media encoders or password/crypto crackers and other similar things.
For most other applications, not using a high-level language is mostly a waste of time.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-05 18:08
>>12
No, it's because it uses a different implementation.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-05 18:11
i love you, /prog/ :3
you're so much fun to argue with over meaningless things
Just to extend my post, I always find it strange that some people, typically Computer Science undergraduates, always seem to point out something like "Oh, I started programming in <insert CPU architecture> assembly." Is this supposed to impress us? You've basically been programming in a form of unstructured Basic; the most primitive type of language next to machine code.
I would be more impressed if you used and understood closures/lambda functions in a higher-level language, or used OOP to correctly model a project.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-05 21:23
>>20
What's wrong with writing software in the processor's native tongue? Not academic enough for you?
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-05 21:25
>>21
There's nothing wrong with it, just like there's nothing wrong with building a rat bike[1] to ride to work, even when there are more suitable modes of transportation.
>>21 Not academic enough for you?
What a strange thing to say. I'm trying to promote an easier way of doing things. There are easier ways to create games, for instance, than hand-coding things in assembly.
It is I who should be asking you if our practical, high-level languages "aren't academic enough for you."
I program in assembly, and now that I've read that wikipedia article, I like the aesthetic of rat bikes as well. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-05 21:34
>>23
High level languages require an enormous amount of infrastructure to work effectively; think GCC/MSVC. Assembly, on the other hand, requires only an assembler, which can be made in a few kilobytes of source in a few days' time, and no greater toolchain is required. Depending on the situation, assembly is the easier way of doing things. Plus, it's just nice to know you're actually working with the hardware, telling it what to do and such; high level languages just feel too sterile to me.
>>25
I don't feel the same.
I've known ASM way before I knew high level languages.
I find its value for doing certain things, which just can't be done without access to the hardware, but for the rest, it would be just a huge waste of time and it would mean disregarding the progress made in Computer Science in the past 50 years or so. A lot of high-level languages either do have inline assembler, or allow linking of calling machine code directly, or can be made to allow direct access to the hardware by tinkering with the actual implementation, which means I can use ASM anytime I really need it, and frankly, it's very often that I need to use it for normal coding tasks.
As for the toolchain "problem"? You need an OS to operate a computer. You need an assembler to assemble some code (unless you want to use the pen and paper aproach to writing and assembling code by hand). Why is it a problem to use a compiler or an implementation/runtime for a high-level language?
HOLY SHIT ARE YOU SERIOUS? This is the most obvious troll and still got 30 replies. Fucking students flooding /prog/.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-05 21:52
>>26
I guess it's just the minimalist aesthetic of it; for an operating system, I loved DOS, and for a programming language, I love assembly. Not too fond of computer science, I just like programming really.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-05 22:07
>>25
One could argue that assembly language is simply high level microcode, and you aren't really any closer to hardware than you are by programming in, say, C. If the distance between the earth and the sun represents how close you are to hardware from C, then the distance between the moon and the sun would be assembly. A rather fitting analogy too, since programming in higher level languages is more down to earth than you ASM astronauts :-)
>>29
You might like to try Verilong or VHDL then, as >>30 said.
However, I bet that is too high-level for you, so you might end up just using schematics in the end, or even doing full-custom designs (instead of piecing components together, you would design the components directly (at the transistor level)).
>>30
Haha, no. Assembly is the closest that software can get to the processor. What's within the processor is outside of the realm of software; you can't exactly reprogram the microcode of your machine--well I guess you could, there have been microcode patches, but even then the microcode ROMs are hardly enough space to implement anything useful, and doing so would disallow any other software to run besides your customized ISA. This is completely negating the fact that some architectures don't even have microcode. Basically, software-wise, assembly is the lowest practical level, other than drawing up some schematics for your own processor design (which is fun too, but not within the scope of programming).
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-05 22:43
>>33
Unless you program kernels and drivers for a living, then there is no reason to use Assembly. "Close to hardware" is a myth perpetuated to make proponents of assembly language feel good about themselves; you can access hardware just as easily in C, via system calls provided by the kernel and memory mapped I/O.
I submit to you that assembly is nothing more than the illusion of being close to hardware. It's a language which gets transformed into a set of numbers in a specific way; nothing more. C is a more expressive and equally powerful language which also gets transformed into a set of numbers.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-05 22:46
What's a good 16-bit debugger/emulator for Windows? I use emu8086 but it expired and I can't find a serial for the newest version so I am fucked unless I want to risk downloading some malware by trying to get a cracked, older version of the program.
>>35 implies to have some knowledge of x86 assembler but, can't crack software or do a little bit of malware analisys
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-05 23:16
>>36 implies to have some knowledge of BBCode
but, can't multi-line quote
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-05 23:30
>>34
Close to the hardware is the truth, though; when programming in assembly, you know everything about your program--how large it is, how many cycles certain parts will execute in, which parts of the CPU are in use, and when exactly everything happens. With C you lose all of this. Most importantly though, programming in assembly is more fun.
>>37
I've written quite some complex BBCode and even wrote programs to generate BBCode for me, yet I never did find out how to multi-line quote.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-05 23:56
>>38
I suppose this is the point where we'll have to agree to disagree. I personally see assembly as quite tedious for almost all tasks; save for when it's necessary for stuff like bootloaders, kernel/driver programming, microcontroller programming (gba, nes, etc..).
I will concede that I do think it's something more CS/IT graduates should be exposed to, at least to form a greater understanding about the nature of computer systems.
>>43
Of course, you can do anything you can do in a high level language, in assembly (but not everything that you can do in assembly, in a high level language - of course a high-level language could emulate the CPU, but that's not the same as issuing commands to the CPU directly), but that doesn't mean that you can use closures and lambda's freely in asm, at least you'll either have to do everything manually, or you're going to be using a lot of macros, and even then, the amount of boilerplate required would be pretty large (just like you can use objects in asm and C, the syntax isn't very pretty). If you want to use such high level features without having to deal with all the boilerplate involved, you're going to end up inventing a language higher than assembly.
>>38
and writing a working generic binary sort takes a week, good fucking luck
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-06 12:57
What's a good 16-bit debugger/emulator for Windows? I use emu8086 but it expired and I can't find a serial for the newest version so I am fucked unless I want to risk downloading some malware by trying to get a cracked, older version of the program.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-06 14:06
>>46
Just write your own, I wrote a Z80 emulator in 3 days and the 8086 is not that much more complex (the 286 and above, however, are going to take a bit more time).
There's already quite a few free and non-free x86 emulators and debuggers. If you wish to use a debugger, just install your target OS in a VM, and use the debugger within that.
Am I the only one who hates coding in low level languages? I can write all kinds of games and programs in hardware, but I just choke all over Z80. It just makes more sense to deal with actual flipflops than to mess around with memory spaces and shit. I don't like having to use any code that I didn't write myself.
Am I the only one who hates programming with transistors? I can write all kinds of games and programs using vacuum tubes and punchcards, but I just choke all over a breadboard. It just makes sense to deal with actual mechanical devices than to mess around with electrons and shit. I don't like having to use any component that I didn't assemble myself.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-06 23:49
Assembly is good for some things and higher level languages are good for others. /thread
Software is not hardware; assembly is the lowest conceptual level of software. It's entirely reasonable to prefer to work on the lowest level, and doing so doesn't mean you necessarily want to build your own transistors.
>>59
Modern hardware is designed just like software, except the testing is considerably more rigurous than how most software is tested.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-07 10:53
>>60
But software is still not hardware; software is a sequence of instructions, whereas hardware is the interpreter for those instructions.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-07 11:01
>>61
I like to think of software as flexible hardware: anything done in software can be implemented in hardware. Only in special cases do we implement hardware that originated as software logic simply because hardware is permanent.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-07 11:58
I like to think of software as totally awesome, and hardware as something for gay nerdy fags with absolutely zero personality. not like software developers. oh no we're out about partying all the time, creative aewsome new paradigms, drinking champagne, riding in limos, smoking cigars, doing the finest cocaine right off of some hot models tits. oh yeah.
>>66
im a software developer, and i was just describing my everyday life
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-08 7:43
oh God my dick is huge today
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-08 8:20
>>69
Mine too! It's red raw swollen from FUCKING hot stripping coeds in the bathroom at this LISP party I went to last night.
Name:
Anonymous2009-11-08 8:30
In the overwhelming number of non-realtime applications, optimising programmer's time is better than optimising program execution time. Thus, Python not ASM.