We get it. It's arguably the best intro to programming text, but it's an intro to programming text. Do you think that MIT, Stanford and Berkeley CS students jerk off to SICP for four years? They don't. They master it their first semester and they move the fuck on. They write C libraries in assembly. They write assembly compilers in C. They write virtual machines and interpreters. They hack kernels. They play with electricity. Mentioning SICP in every post doesn't make you look like REAL PROGRAMMER. It makes you look like a high school student.
If they still require schooling after SICP, then they did not master it.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-27 23:29
>>2
Oh right, [b][i]EXPERT PROGRAMMERS[/b][/i] master it, drop out of school, start some shitty social networking startup, make billions of dollars and then talk about SICP on /prog/ all day.
>>11
SICP didn't teach you that ASM is a compiled language? Gee, it should have. Guess you didn't master it.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-28 2:18
>>1 They write C libraries in assembly. They write assembly compilers in C. They write virtual machines and interpreters.
It's hard. Very hard. To write compiler in C.
Even more hard is to write a virtual machine, as you'll have to implement optimizing JIT-compiler.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-28 2:20
Most "assemblers" are in fact compilers without optimizations, which merely translate to absolute memory offsets
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-28 2:22
>>14
Still hard to do them in C, cuz it has no list-processing capabilities.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-28 2:34
>>13
It's not hard to write an assembly compiler in C. I did it freshman year. That was easy. The hard part was writing a CPU in logisim to run the resulting binary. That was just tedious.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-28 2:39
>>15
Yeah, I guess writing an assembly compiler would be extra difficult if you think assembly is Scheme.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-28 2:45
>>16 It's not hard to write an assembly compiler in C. I did it freshman year. That was easy.
It took you a whole fucking year, what Lispers do in a few evenings.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-28 2:58
>>18
Who said it took a whole year? That was just one course. The compiler and the CPU were each worth 1/8th the grade. It wasn't a big deal.
And you're assuming we don't use LISP. We do, but this was a machine structures course. There's more to CS than software, you know.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-28 4:43
I once tried to write a fibonacci calculator in a language that didn't have list-processing capabilities, and BOY WAS THAT A MISTAKE
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
int i, j;
for (i = 1; i < argc; i++) {
int n = atoi(argv[i]);
if (n < 0) {
printf("fib(%d) is undefined.\n", n);
}
unsigned long int fm = 0;
unsigned long int fn = n == 0 ? 0 : 1;
for (j = 0; j < n; j++) {
unsigned long int tmp = fn + fm;
fm = fn;
fn = tmp;
}
printf("fib(%d) = %lu\n", n, fn);
}
return 0;
}
Because most people here can't program. Which is easier: waving a book around and insisting that reading/owning said book makes you skilled, or writing code to prove that you're a good programmer?
>>24
You calculate Fibonacci numbers recursively? That's terrible!
Also, back to the imageboards, please.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-28 15:35
>>27
You think that calling Fibonacci a recursive function which it is by definition implies that I'd use recursive function calls to calculate it on a computer? That's horrible!
>>1 intro to programming
It's an intro to CS, not programming.
Mentioning C and assembly doesn't make you credible, using ``C'' and ``compiler'' in the same sentence will make you look like a complete idiot.
assembly compiler
Everything one needs to completely disregard everything you said as horseshit since you have no idea what a compiler does in the first place.
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-28 17:37
>>32
[quote]The GNU Compiler Collection includes front ends for C, C++, Objective-C, Fortran, Java, Ada, and Go, as well as libraries for these languages (libstdc++, libgcj,...).[/quote]
- http://gcc.gnu.org/
Wow, is that idiotic or what?
Name:
Anonymous2011-06-28 17:41
>>33
>he thinks that assembly code is machine code
>>34
Writing C and C++ compilers is a known act of masochism.
Writing compilers in C or C++ is idiotic.
Writing C/C++ compilers in C/C++ is idiotic and masochistic.
Yet, you failed to point out that GCC is written in C: it provides a C frontend, so what?
>>39
Yeah, managing complex dynamically allocated big tree data structures in a weakly typed unsafe language with manual memory allocation is a good idea. Why use a language with proper handling of tree-like data structures and automatic memory management that helps you instead of fail miserably with a segmentation fault when you do something wrong while writing a big, complex program that doesn't need to care about when the memory has to be allocated/deallocated such as a compiler?
For the retards in the unknown, a compiler is a intermediate translator between two distinct formal grammar. Machine code is not a valid formal grammar neither is most assembly language therefore an assembler cannot be a compiler.
>>45
Wow, that's the second time you've stroked your own cock for hanging out on a 4chan text board. OMG, what a super exclusive club this is. gb2 /b/ lolol. XD