programming in Assembly language

Dear sir,
Going down to root level of machine language ,

and going high to high level languae in " Visual "

and at " dot. Net " level , can we still claim :

ASSEMBLY LANGUAGE IS STILL A GOOD PROGRAMMING

LANGUAGE TO DEVELOPE A SOFTWARE "

or we should contend to the academic aspect only.

Plz comment

ah.


Comments

  • : Dear sir,
    : Going down to root level of machine language ,
    :
    : and going high to high level languae in " Visual "
    :
    : and at " dot. Net " level , can we still claim :
    :
    : ASSEMBLY LANGUAGE IS STILL A GOOD PROGRAMMING
    :
    : LANGUAGE TO DEVELOPE A SOFTWARE "
    :
    : or we should contend to the academic aspect only.
    :
    : Plz comment
    :
    : ah.
    :
    :
    [green]
    If you want to know the 'machine' the best then the lower you go the better. If you want a 'black box' like most programmers have as far as experience then stick with the high level languages that mask the internal systems of the 'machine'. Thats my opinion though.
    [/green]


  • : : Dear sir,
    : : Going down to root level of machine language ,
    : :
    : : and going high to high level languae in " Visual "
    : :
    : : and at " dot. Net " level , can we still claim :
    : :
    : : ASSEMBLY LANGUAGE IS STILL A GOOD PROGRAMMING
    : :
    : : LANGUAGE TO DEVELOPE A SOFTWARE "
    : :
    : : or we should contend to the academic aspect only.
    : :
    : : Plz comment
    : :
    : : ah.
    : :
    : :
    : [green]
    : If you want to know the 'machine' the best then the lower you go the better. If you want a 'black box' like most programmers have as far as experience then stick with the high level languages that mask the internal systems of the 'machine'. Thats my opinion though.
    : [/green]
    :
    : Dear Sir,
    Thank you for the reply.

    What you have replied is simply a statement , and not an explaination.
    There should be vallid reason supporting the statement. The reasons should be explainable ( understandable) with examples and inferences. Without them the simple staement does not carry any weight.

    I hope you get my point.

    Thanks again.

    ah.




  • [red]Without them the simple staement does not carry any weight.
    [/red]

    [green]
    My statement sums it up quite well and I guess the meaning eluded you in some way but I will try to clarify. Learning assembly involves learning the lower systems of the computer: PIC, PIT, DMA, FDC, ect.. Learning assembly enables you to go beyond the 'black box' approach that higher level languages mask. Your in control of everything in other words.

    A higher level language has a 'black box' approach. The programmer normally isn't concerned what the guts of a printf() function is but is concerned on how to use it. To me this isn't programming. You are just using someone elses premade functions to accomplish a task. The higher level language programmer usually doesn't have the knowledge of the lower systems since most of these are usually incorporated into a function of masked. So what you must determine is this, do I want to know how the systems in a pc work or am I just wanting the 'black box' approach and use someone elses functions in a higher level language? Pretty much that simple.
    [/green]


  • : [red]Without them the simple staement does not carry any weight.
    : [/red]
    :
    : [green]
    : My statement sums it up quite well and I guess the meaning eluded you in some way but I will try to clarify. Learning assembly involves learning the lower systems of the computer: PIC, PIT, DMA, FDC, ect.. Learning assembly enables you to go beyond the 'black box' approach that higher level languages mask. Your in control of everything in other words.
    :
    : A higher level language has a 'black box' approach. The programmer normally isn't concerned what the guts of a printf() function is but is concerned on how to use it. To me this isn't programming. You are just using someone elses premade functions to accomplish a task. The higher level language programmer usually doesn't have the knowledge of the lower systems since most of these are usually incorporated into a function of masked. So what you must determine is this, do I want to know how the systems in a pc work or am I just wanting the 'black box' approach and use someone elses functions in a higher level language? Pretty much that simple.
    : [/green]
    :
    :
    :
    If you have a company that builds PCs, then bulid PCs!!!, and buy the CPUs, Memories, Chips, and other parts to the companies that make them.

    If you have a company that builds CPUs, then build CPUs!!!, and sell them to the companies that build PCs.

    In one side, is stupid to build a PC and start the job building the CPU, Memory, BIOS, Lan, Modem, etc by your self. At the time you are going to finish the job you are going to be 80 years older. If you build a PC you have to study a lot of third party hardware information to join it well.

    In the other side, if you build a CPU you have to study a lot of physics and CPU standards to make compatible CPUs.

    Finally, hight engineering isn't better than low engineering. Low engineering isn't better than hight engineering.

    They are just languages for diferent applications. What languange you use, depends on your budget, time, goal.

    If you go too low you are going to find quantum physics, if you o too hight you are going to find astronomy. Assembler compared to quantum physics is a hight level language, Visual Basic compared to Astronomy is a very low level languange.

    There is nothing bad in programming a black box, there is nothing bad in studing the black box.

    In fact, we all live in a black box. If you want to have fun, go to your physics teacher one day and ask him.
    Is gravitational force going to still exist in the universe in the folloing five minutes?
    He is going to answer you. Of cource!!! what kind of stupid quiestion is that?
    ok, the real thing is this. That question is completelly out of the scope of a physicist. Is better to make that question to a priest or a
    philosopher.
    But the physicist is doing a good job.

    In fact, we all live in a open box. If you want to have fun, go to your priest one day and ask him.
    Why an object that trabels at to hight speed starts to loose the efect of time over it (relative to static observers)?
    He is going to answer you... Amen! ...
    ok, the real thing is this. That question is completelly out of the scope of a priest. Is better to make that question to a physicist.
    But the priest is doing a good job.

    Even mush peope is going to disapoint all what I am saying, they are doing a good job too.

    A wise man said...
    ...that is relative.
    ... even that is relative...




  • [green]
    Like I said in my previous post, if you want to really learn the machine and know how everything interacts with each other then you have to learn some assembly language. In these high level languages, these things are masked or done for you. When you go to learn DMA, PIC, PIT, and other embedded systems then more than likely that information is going to be in assembly and not C or any other high level language. It's not quatum physics, theory or relativity, or even biology it's just plain computer science. I would suggest even going beyond that and learn how and/or/xor/nand/nor/not gates work, what makes up the ALU and how it works, and other general computer science stuff, but thats by personal preference. You can't go wrong learning the basics and then moving to a higher level construct.
    [/green]

  • You make a good point. Assembly language is the basis of knowing how the computer interacts with the programs, so in order to learn it you must put time and effort into it. I am learning ASM and other programming rite now through courses rather than myself. It is a tedious step.
  • : You make a good point. Assembly language is the basis of knowing how the computer interacts with the programs, so in order to learn it you must put time and effort into it. I am learning ASM and other programming rite now through courses rather than myself. It is a tedious step.
    :
    .......................................................................
    Dear Shaolin 007 and comp

    I am highly thankful to both of you ,for the interest taken in the topic of discussion . It really helped me to understand , what the Assebly is ( or does ) . Me too is going through a course of this language , and the scope , width and capabilities are amazing. I will like to know about it more . Plz keep writing.

    Thanks.
    ah.


  • Chapter 2 of this book http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/AoA/Windows/index.html really tells you all you need to know about the inner workings of the computer. But actually learning to write good assembly language code can help you write better C, Delphi, and .NET code.

    Another way to say it: A car mechanic who knows how the engine (motor) works is a better car mechanic. Would you want a mechanic to fix your car's engine if he doesn't understand the basics of how a car's engine works?


  • : Chapter 2 of this book http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/AoA/Windows/index.html really tells you all you need to know about the inner workings of the computer. But actually learning to write good assembly language code can help you write better C, Delphi, and .NET code.
    :
    : Another way to say it: A car mechanic who knows how the engine (motor) works is a better car mechanic. Would you want a mechanic to fix your car's engine if he doesn't understand the basics of how a car's engine works?
    :
    :
    :
    you make a good point Evenbit. I personally would not allow a mechanic who does not know the workings of an engine to fix my car. Well all you need to know is how it works with the call functions and how it affects the computer, if you learn it and you do well in it then you will have no problems. Assembly will take time to learn but maybe it is best to learn the internal workings of the computer first, like for example how the proccessor works and how it implements its entire features...
  • : Chapter 2 of this book http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/AoA/Windows/index.html really tells you all you need to know about the inner workings of the computer. But actually learning to write good assembly language code can help you write better C, Delphi, and .NET code.
    :
    : Another way to say it: A car mechanic who knows how the engine (motor) works is a better car mechanic. Would you want a mechanic to fix your car's engine if he doesn't understand the basics of how a car's engine works?
    :
    [green]
    Good analogy! I couldn't of said it better myself.
    [/green]

  • : : [red]Without them the simple staement does not carry any weight.
    : : [/red]
    : :
    : : [green]
    : : My statement sums it up quite well and I guess the meaning eluded you in some way but I will try to clarify. Learning assembly involves learning the lower systems of the computer: PIC, PIT, DMA, FDC, ect.. Learning assembly enables you to go beyond the 'black box' approach that higher level languages mask. Your in control of everything in other words.
    : :
    : : A higher level language has a 'black box' approach. The programmer normally isn't concerned what the guts of a printf() function is but is concerned on how to use it. To me this isn't programming. You are just using someone elses premade functions to accomplish a task. The higher level language programmer usually doesn't have the knowledge of the lower systems since most of these are usually incorporated into a function of masked. So what you must determine is this, do I want to know how the systems in a pc work or am I just wanting the 'black box' approach and use someone elses functions in a higher level language? Pretty much that simple.
    : : [/green]
    : :
    : :
    : :
    : If you have a company that builds PCs, then bulid PCs!!!, and buy the CPUs, Memories, Chips, and other parts to the companies that make them.
    :
    : If you have a company that builds CPUs, then build CPUs!!!, and sell them to the companies that build PCs.
    :
    : In one side, is stupid to build a PC and start the job building the CPU, Memory, BIOS, Lan, Modem, etc by your self. At the time you are going to finish the job you are going to be 80 years older. If you build a PC you have to study a lot of third party hardware information to join it well.
    :
    : In the other side, if you build a CPU you have to study a lot of physics and CPU standards to make compatible CPUs.
    :
    : Finally, hight engineering isn't better than low engineering. Low engineering isn't better than hight engineering.
    :
    : They are just languages for diferent applications. What languange you use, depends on your budget, time, goal.
    :
    : If you go too low you are going to find quantum physics, if you o too hight you are going to find astronomy. Assembler compared to quantum physics is a hight level language, Visual Basic compared to Astronomy is a very low level languange.
    :
    : There is nothing bad in programming a black box, there is nothing bad in studing the black box.
    :
    : In fact, we all live in a black box. If you want to have fun, go to your physics teacher one day and ask him.
    : Is gravitational force going to still exist in the universe in the folloing five minutes?
    : He is going to answer you. Of cource!!! what kind of stupid quiestion is that?
    : ok, the real thing is this. That question is completelly out of the scope of a physicist. Is better to make that question to a priest or a
    : philosopher.
    : But the physicist is doing a good job.
    :
    : In fact, we all live in a open box. If you want to have fun, go to your priest one day and ask him.
    : Why an object that trabels at to hight speed starts to loose the efect of time over it (relative to static observers)?
    : He is going to answer you... Amen! ...
    : ok, the real thing is this. That question is completelly out of the scope of a priest. Is better to make that question to a physicist.
    : But the priest is doing a good job.
    :
    : Even mush peope is going to disapoint all what I am saying, they are doing a good job too.
    :
    : A wise man said...
    : ...that is relative.
    : ... even that is relative...
    :
    :
    :
    :
    : I just published my OS,written in nasm-dialect. I needed only about 30K of code to make all You need to R/W files on FD and HD, to edit, manage the memory a.s.o.
    If You add an operating system interrupt - with already written procedure - You get a functionality as old M$DOS. But I intend to use FAR-jumps and -calls for interaction between programs. Thus I have to make a lot of changes to the code...
    What I want to say is: You do not need 80 years to write the whole thing!
    Look at my homepage
    www.rcfriz.de

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories