Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer

Reply
Thread Tools

Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer

 
 
BartC
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2011


"jacob navia" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:j8ote4$ghj$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Le 01/11/11 14:29, Nick Keighley a écrit :
>> On Oct 31, 5:55 pm, Frederick Williams<(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>> BartC wrote:
>>>> What do you think the chances are of them wanting pdp-11 or z80
>>>> programmers?
>>>
>>> I have PLAN experience, if that's any help!

>>
>> ICL 1900 series.
>>
>> How about Myriad User Code?

>
> One of the big problems of old people is that they tend to live
> in the past.
>
> ANY discussion in this group leads to
>
> "And in machine XXX (dead since at least 20 years) bytes were
> 8.75 bits, remember that eh?"


We didn't even have bytes...

--
Bartc



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ian Collins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2011
On 11/ 2/11 02:49 AM, jacob navia wrote:
>
> I have nothing against old people but as I age, I try to
> stay away from old age's pitfalls, in the same way as when I was young
> I tried to avoid young age's pitfalls.


So you adopted middle-age pitfalls ant a young age and you've stuck with
them?

--
Ian Collins
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
BGB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2011
On 11/1/2011 6:49 AM, jacob navia wrote:
> Le 01/11/11 14:29, Nick Keighley a écrit :
>> On Oct 31, 5:55 pm, Frederick Williams<(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>> BartC wrote:
>>>> What do you think the chances are of them wanting pdp-11 or z80
>>>> programmers?
>>>
>>> I have PLAN experience, if that's any help!

>>
>> ICL 1900 series.
>>
>> How about Myriad User Code?

>
> One of the big problems of old people is that they tend to live
> in the past.
>
> ANY discussion in this group leads to
>
> "And in machine XXX (dead since at least 20 years) bytes were
> 8.75 bits, remember that eh?"
>
> This has nothing with remembering history but everything
> with seeking to revive "old memories of yore".
>
> I have nothing against old people but as I age, I try to
> stay away from old age's pitfalls, in the same way as when I was young
> I tried to avoid young age's pitfalls.
>


most of my life, x86 has been the dominant architecture.
back when I was young (as in, early elementary-school years / early 90s,
originally learning how to use computers) DOS was still a major OS,
though at this point being displaced by Windows...

I guess maybe in the early 90s x86 was battling off m68k or similar, but
Macs were fairly rare IME (IIRC, most people just had PCs...).


I was alive during part of the 80s, but FWIW I don't remember it.


sadly, I am getting fairly old now as well...
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ark
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-04-2011


On 10/31/2011 12:58 PM, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 10/31/2011 12:39 PM, BartC wrote:


> Since they just specified "assembler", without indicating which kind of
> assembler experience they're looking for, it seem pretty reasonable to
> assume that they don't really know what they want.


OTOH, Any assembly programming takes understanding of "how machines
work", willingness to read data sheets, etc. That's portable across
architectures. Knowledge of instruction sets, register stalls etc. is
easier acquired. People very seldom need a stellar assembler programmer
 
Reply With Quote
 
Joe keane
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-04-2011
I learned 6502 when i was a kid (no we didn't have assembler, you just
have to put the codes in a BASIC string), later PDP-11, and then any
assembler language seems the same.

I guees i'm an old fart?
 
Reply With Quote
 
gwowen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-04-2011
On Nov 1, 1:49*pm, jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> ANY discussion in this group leads to
>
> "And in machine XXX (dead since at least 20 years) bytes were
> 8.75 bits, remember that eh?"


Who the hell writes x86 assembler professionally these days though?
Video codec writers, perhaps. Everyone else, if they're forced into
writing assembly, its almost always because the target processor is
*not* a general purpose.

Clue: The x86 and its descendants are not the most widely produced
microprocessors in the world - and it isn't even close - even for
things that are, loosely, general purpose computers. And, given that
smartphones and tablets and the like appear to be future, that gap is
going to widen, and not close.

So, if you're going to talk chip-specific assembler, and you're not
using an ARM instruction set, you're talking about a niche market.
 
Reply With Quote
 
BGB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-04-2011
On 11/4/2011 7:07 AM, gwowen wrote:
> On Nov 1, 1:49 pm, jacob navia<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> ANY discussion in this group leads to
>>
>> "And in machine XXX (dead since at least 20 years) bytes were
>> 8.75 bits, remember that eh?"

>
> Who the hell writes x86 assembler professionally these days though?
> Video codec writers, perhaps. Everyone else, if they're forced into
> writing assembly, its almost always because the target processor is
> *not* a general purpose.
>


lots of people write x86 assembler...

at this point, it is probably because there are still things one may
want to do in a program, which are not readily possible (or practical)
purely within C or similar, so someone needs ASM to make it work correctly.

performance is sometimes a motivation, probably more often it is to
either use HW specific features, or to work around some natural limits
in how C works and is implemented on processors.


a simple example would be writing a general purpose "apply" function,
where one calls a function pointer with an arbitrary (only known at
runtime) argument list.

in C, this essentially requires a (potentially massive) switch
statement, which requires converting the argument list into a number,
.... and generally ends up kind of slow, and adding a fair amount of size
to the final binary.

in ASM, the task is much more straightforward.
hence, ASM ends up being preferable here.

likewise, going the reverse, and for things like constructing lambdas
(which look/behave like ordinary function pointers), ...

maybe:
try to write a pure C implementation of something like setjmp/longjmp;
....


> Clue: The x86 and its descendants are not the most widely produced
> microprocessors in the world - and it isn't even close - even for
> things that are, loosely, general purpose computers. And, given that
> smartphones and tablets and the like appear to be future, that gap is
> going to widen, and not close.
>


people say that "smartphones/tablets/... as future", however this seems
unlikely. far more likely, they will be used alongside desktops and
laptops and like, and after a few years people will wonder why their
sales drop so much: "oh yeah... market saturation...".

for most small embedded devices, the number of units is misleading, as
most are non-programmable, so maybe a few people produce the original
software for a given device, but they run off millions of units. doesn't
mean that this constitutes a larger amount of total work (by
programmers), only that a large number of units have been produced.


> So, if you're going to talk chip-specific assembler, and you're not
> using an ARM instruction set, you're talking about a niche market.


x86 is likely still most commonly used, even for assembler.
ARM probably comes in second, and most of this is likely people writing
software for Android or similar, and doing something which needs ASM.
 
Reply With Quote
 
gwowen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-04-2011
On Nov 4, 3:30*pm, BGB <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > So, if you're going to talk chip-specific assembler, and you're not
> > using an ARM instruction set, you're talking about a niche market.

>
> x86 is likely still most commonly used, even for assembler.


By volume, ARM chips massively outsell x86 chips, and most of those
are used on devices so diverse that each one will be require bespoke
code - frequently in assembler (especially for the chips with little
memory). The x86 chips will run Windows or some Unix-like OS, which
means even the bespoke code will be compiled [C/C++/Fortran], byte-
compiled [Java, C#] or interpreted (VB, Perl, Python). No-one writes
CGI/SQL in assembly. Some numerical codes will have highly tuned core
code in assembly (to exploit SIMD, etc) but even that is increasingly
being devolved to massively parallel GPU-code [CUDA, etc].

So tell me, how on earth do you reach the conclusion that "x86 is
likely still most commonly used, even for assembler"?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Kaz Kylheku
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-04-2011
On 2011-11-04, BGB <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> lots of people write x86 assembler...


Can you put that into some kind of numbers?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Malcolm McLean
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-04-2011
On Nov 4, 8:01*pm, Robert Wessel <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 08:30:03 -0700, BGB <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> Smartphone shipments started exceeding PC shipments last year. *And
> those are all programmable (and does not include feature phones or
> tablets).
>
> For the vast majority of users, PC effectively aren't programmable
> either - almost all software run on 95% of PCs is written by a "few"
> people who then run off "millions" of units.
>

Currently I'm running a version of Windows. Open are two "folders", an
Open Office document with my novel in it, a copy of wordpad showing
some C source, a copy of a source editor called Crimson Editor, a
command prompt window which I use for running tcc (tiny C compiler),
Adobe Viewer with a scientific paper, and, of course, the web browser
I'm typing this into.

So most of these programs are mass market ones, and the ones that
aren't are to do with programming.

That's one reason we're seeing a shift from PCs to less flexible (in
software terms) but more portable and easier to use devices. Most
people want to run a fairly limited set of programs. The exception is
games, but even here, games are moving to the internet.

--
Download free games:
http://www.malcolmmclean.site11.com/www

 
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
Looking for programmer experienced in Python/Django/Git/Unix TMChris Python 0 10-14-2009 09:09 PM
Experienced programmer: where to start with Java? Dave Java 9 10-25-2004 09:31 AM
web services tutorial/software for experienced programmer? Digital Puer Java 2 08-04-2004 12:31 PM
Experienced VB programmer trying to learn Java - Which IDE is best? Bill Java 7 07-23-2004 12:12 PM
looking for intro C text for experienced programmer Guy Middleton C Programming 3 09-01-2003 10:25 PM



Advertisments