From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,baaf5f793d03d420 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: fc89c,97188312486d4578 X-Google-Attributes: gidfc89c,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,6154de2e240de72a X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,97188312486d4578 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: steidl@centuryinter.net Subject: Re: What's the best language to start with? [was: Re: Should I learn C or Pascal?] Date: 1996/08/08 Message-ID: <4uboqc$p2u@news.ld.centuryinter.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 172874902 references: <01bb7fcc$c5a98de0$87ee6fce@timpent.airshields.com> <4u5rqe$9gv@ns.broadvision.com> organization: Century Internet reply-to: steidl@centuryinter.net newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-08-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In , Dan.Pop@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes: >In <4u5rqe$9gv@ns.broadvision.com> patrick@broadvision.com (Patrick Horgan) writes: > >>In article <01bb7fcc$c5a98de0$87ee6fce@timpent.airshields.com>, "Tim Behrendsen" writes: >>> Except, IMO assembly should be used *exclusively* for the first two >>> years of a CS degree. The first two years is usually all algorithmic >>> analysis, anyway. There's nothing you can't learn about algorithms >>> that you can't learn and learn it better doing it in assembly. >> >>Good point Tim! It's sure a lot easier counting cycles in assembler. > >Yeah, predicting cache misses and pipe stalls is a piece of cake. >The superpipelined processors make the problem even easier. That's why I loved programming my CoCos (6809) - no cache misses (no cache), no pipeline stalls (no pipeline), no complex instruction interactions (no superscaler capabilities), no wait states (memory was several times *faster* than the CPU :-). But I don't live in dispair, maybe those days will return... (as in "ha ha, only serious") >>Unfortunately, a lot of schools aren't teaching algorithmic analysis >>anymore. > >If there is any connection between algorithm analysis and cycle counting, >I definitely missed it. Well, "way back then" I could do a quick sanity check on any given algorithm analysis by plugging the cycles into the formula and pulling out the old stopwatch. Granted, doing so was typically not necessary, but it was often-times still gratifying. [OK, so shaving off a few hundreths of a second fed my ego -- I'm much better now, really! ;-)] -Jeff steidl@centuryinter.net - http://www.dont.i.wish.com/ All opinions are my own, and are subject to change without notice.