Ada

Name one flaw about Ada... oh wait you can't

>>41
It's interesting, that school and university jews hate dynamic languages. Try asking your school teacher, why they have only Pascal, C, Java and Visual Basic, never Lisp, Smalltalk or pure Assembly. Although Assembly and Lisp are simliest languages out there. I, myself, started coding from assembly, because C++ and Basic were too hard.

>>42

They have a class for python and a class for visual basic, but they are not part of the required CS curriculum and can be avoided entirely.

Although they do have a class taught in scheme, which is dynamic.

Also, assembly is compiled, not interpreted.

>>43
Assembly is assembled, which is somewhat simpler. And in most introductory assembly courses, you start off with SPIM, a MIPS simulator.

>>43
Also, assembly is compiled, not interpreted.
Virtual machines, emulators, ...

>>44
C code: file.c -> file.s -> file.o ->file
ASM code: file.s -> file.o -> file

Just one less stage in compilation really...
>>45
Well the same could be said about C then...

>>46
Well the same could be said about C then...
Yes. No language is ``compiled'' or ``interpreted''.

Just one less stage in compilation really...
Assembly instructions map 1-1 to the ``machine code''. Because they are just mnemonics.

>>51
Dimension. Classic BASIC doesn't require variable declaration, so it was originally only used for sizing arrays.

>>47
Not Intel x86 assembler. For example, 'mov' corresponds to several different machine instructions based on which arguments are registers and which are addresses held in registers.

Why do I get the feeling that all of the regulars in this channel know nothing about computers outside of their favourite functional fiefdoms?

>>52
For example, 'mov' corresponds to several different machine instructions based on which arguments are registers and which are addresses held in registers.
Yes, I know, but it still is one mov that translates to one of those instructions. Even pusha doesn't magically become push eax | push ebx | push ecx | ....

Why do I get the feeling that all of the regulars in this channel know nothing about computers outside of their favourite functional fiefdoms?
Because you're wrong, and because it's almost summer. But there's no magic inside the computer.

>>52,54
All of those can be represented by 100010ds /r. Saying that they are not the same MOV instruction is like arguing that ADD EAX, 5 and ADD EAX, 10 are not the same ADD instruction.

Now MOV immediate to register, MOV immediate to memory, MOV Sreg and MOV moffs have their own opcodes. MOV CRx and MOV DRx are even handled as seperate instruction in the Intel manuals.

But even with this, x86 assmebly is very WYSIWYG: ``One of the design goals of NASM is that it should be possible, as far as is practical, for the user to look at a single line of NASM code and tell what opcode is generated by it.''
The only exceptions are for labels (optional, if you are insane) and for optimization (optional). So there is an injective 1-to-1 mapping of a line of x86 assembly to x86 machinecode.

But I'm sure you were all very excited on /g/ about compiling BFS.

>>56
injective 1-to-1 mapping
reached retardedness threshold right there

>>47
Assembly instructions map 1-1 to the ``machine code''. Because they are just mnemonics.
Never used a MIPS assembler then?

>>55
Even pusha doesn't magically become push eax | push ebx | push ecx | ....
That's what microcode is for. Anyway, how do you encode a "nop" on x86? There's lots of ways to do it, and they're not all equal.