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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID 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: 10db24,4cf070091283b555 X-Google-Attributes: gid10db24,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,6154de2e240de72a X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,97188312486d4578 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Dan.Pop@cern.ch (Dan Pop) Subject: Re: What's the best language to learn? [was Re: Should I learn C or Pascal?] Date: 1996/08/17 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 174648993 sender: news@news.cern.ch (USENET News System) x-nntp-posting-host: ues5.cern.ch references: <4u7hi6$s2b@nntp.seflin.lib.fl.us> <4uo74j$95p@ns.broadvision.com> <01bb8950$2c8dcc60$87ee6fce@timpent.airshields.com> <4ut8h3$2an@ccshst05.uoguelph.ca> organization: CERN European Lab for Particle Physics newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.unix.programmer Date: 1996-08-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In mdw@excessus.demon.co.uk (Mark Wooding) writes: >Gabor Egressy wrote: > >> Why oh why would you want to start with assembly? Assembly is great >> for writing viruses and small code that needs to be fast but is a pain >> to write and maintain. > >Eeek. It's all evil lies. It's a vicious rumour put about by a secret >cabal for their own nefarious purposes. > >I'll admit that I've written assembler code which is almost utterly >illegible to me now. I've also written some awful C code, so that >doesn't mean much. However, I have /lots/ more beautiful looking and >instantly readable assembler code. Instantly readable to whom? Definitely not to another assembly programmer who doesn't know your particular assembly language(s). >Just because it's low-level stuff doesn't mean it has to be hard to >understand. Just like any other language, if you take a bit of care to >present your code nicely, it will be readable; if you don't, it will be >ghastly. Readable or not, it's still a hell to port it to another architecture. Porting it even to another OS running on the same architecture might not be exactly a piece of cake. Maintaining a piece of assembly code which has been already optimized for a certain modern processor is also a royal pain in the ass if you want the result to be still optimal. The days when the only concern was to get it right from the logical point of view are long gone: if your assembly code is slower than the compiler output, what is the point in using assembly in the first place? And the cases when the assembly code is faster than the compiler output are fewer and fewer and farther between on the current CISC and RISC architectures. Dan -- Dan Pop CERN, CN Division Email: Dan.Pop@cern.ch Mail: CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland