Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C++ > Re: for 80% better asm

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: for 80% better asm

 
 
Joshua Maurice
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2011
On Sep 21, 10:07*pm, "Rosario Pulvirenti"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> assembly is better than C or C++
> if you have a serious project
>
> C or C++ could be useful for using easy hll functions
> but the hard work has to be in assembly
>
> there is no easy way in programming computers...
> Rosario


Is this a poor attempt at a troll?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Lucien Coffe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2011
Joshua Maurice wrote¬*:
> Is this a poor attempt at a troll?


Either that or this guy has a time machine and comes from the 80's.

--
perl -e 's;;{]``*%)}`_^[&)/#%(`&;;\
y;%^)([]/*#&`_{};.\100acghiklmopsz;;print'
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Nick Keighley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2011
On Sep 22, 8:12*am, Lucien Coffe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Joshua Maurice wrote*:
>
> > Is this a poor attempt at a troll?

>
> Either that or this guy has a time machine and comes from the 80's.


HLLs existed even in the 80s
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lucien Coffe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2011
Nick Keighley wrote¬*:

> On Sep 22, 8:12¬*am, Lucien Coffe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Joshua Maurice wrote¬*:
>>
>> > Is this a poor attempt at a troll?

>>
>> Either that or this guy has a time machine and comes from the 80's.

>
> HLLs existed even in the 80s


So OP is denying the existance of HLL? You tl;dr'd, don't you.

--
perl -e 's;;{]``*%)}`_^[&)/#%(`&;;\
y;%^)([]/*#&`_{};.\100acghiklmopsz;;print'
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jorgen Grahn
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2011
On Thu, 2011-09-22, Nick Keighley wrote:
> On Sep 22, 8:12*am, Lucien Coffe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Joshua Maurice wrote*:
>>
>> > Is this a poor attempt at a troll?

>>
>> Either that or this guy has a time machine and comes from the 80's.

>
> HLLs existed even in the 80s


His point was, I'm sure, that people[1] argued exactly like the OP
back then, not that they were *right*.

/Jorgen

[1] People in the home computer scene, that is. Unix programmers
probably never did much assembly programming, since they had
nearby proof that you could do serious programming in C.

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
 
Reply With Quote
 
BGB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2011
On 9/22/2011 1:46 AM, Nick Keighley wrote:
> On Sep 22, 8:12 am, Lucien Coffe<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Joshua Maurice wrote :
>>
>>> Is this a poor attempt at a troll?

>>
>> Either that or this guy has a time machine and comes from the 80's.

>
> HLLs existed even in the 80s


yes, but IIRC, but back in the days of MS-DOS, it was more common to
write much of ones' code in assembler.

by the time dos-extenders and similar were getting popular, most
development had shifted to C and C++ (and since then ASM has taken on an
increasingly smaller role in most apps).

Unix style OS's (namely Linux) didn't really start gaining any real
popularity on PC-style hardware AFAIK until around the mid/late 90s.


some of my project though does involve using ASM, but nearly all of it
is dynamically generated (an assembler exists in-program, and used for
assembling code at runtime). a merit of ASM though is that it is very
capable, and compiles/assembles very quickly. it currently supports x86
and x86-64, ARM and Thumb (ARM/Thumb support still needs work though).

its big drawback (fairly obvious) is that it is specific to each
combination of CPU/mode/OS/... meaning that it is not generally used for
general-purpose logic code (everything that works fine in C or C++ is
left in said languages).

mostly, it is used for specific features which can't be implemented
(effectively, or at all) at the same level as C or C++, which means
mostly reflection-related operations, and for JIT-related purposes (it
is IMO much nicer, and easier to debug, to produce ASM as output from a
JIT, rather than going directly to machine-code, and generally the
assembler is plenty fast enough that its own overhead generally doesn't
matter so much).

or such...
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
define byte asm substitute? Edwin Knoppert ASP .Net 0 01-11-2006 02:06 PM
Build a Better Blair (like Build a Better Bush, only better) Kenny Computer Support 0 05-06-2005 04:50 AM
ANN: 9Rays.Spices.Net [asm.browser, analyzer, obfuscator, decompiler, modeler]v3.4.2 released Al Ponomarev ASP .Net 3 05-03-2004 07:52 PM
OLD CISCO ASM CSC3 - Terminal line configuration Joe Bloggs Cisco 0 01-21-2004 02:02 PM
ASM Help toddneumiller Java 8 11-09-2003 08:24 AM



Advertisments