Re: for 80% better asm

Discussion in 'C++' started by Joshua Maurice, Sep 22, 2011.

  1. On Sep 21, 10:07 pm, "Rosario Pulvirenti"
    <> 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?
     
    Joshua Maurice, Sep 22, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Joshua Maurice

    Lucien Coffe Guest

    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'
     
    Lucien Coffe, Sep 22, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Sep 22, 8:12 am, Lucien Coffe <> 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
     
    Nick Keighley, Sep 22, 2011
    #3
  4. Joshua Maurice

    Lucien Coffe Guest

    Nick Keighley wrote :

    > On Sep 22, 8:12 am, Lucien Coffe <> 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'
     
    Lucien Coffe, Sep 22, 2011
    #4
  5. Joshua Maurice

    Jorgen Grahn Guest

    On Thu, 2011-09-22, Nick Keighley wrote:
    > On Sep 22, 8:12 am, Lucien Coffe <> 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 .
     
    Jorgen Grahn, Sep 22, 2011
    #5
  6. Joshua Maurice

    BGB Guest

    On 9/22/2011 1:46 AM, Nick Keighley wrote:
    > On Sep 22, 8:12 am, Lucien Coffe<> 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...
     
    BGB, Sep 22, 2011
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Al Ponomarev
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    490
    Ken Cox [Microsoft MVP]
    May 3, 2004
  2. Edwin Knoppert

    define byte asm substitute?

    Edwin Knoppert, Jan 11, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    530
    Edwin Knoppert
    Jan 11, 2006
  3. toddneumiller

    ASM Help

    toddneumiller, Nov 6, 2003, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    548
  4. Francesco Devittori

    ASM (vs. BCEL) - can I do this?

    Francesco Devittori, Dec 20, 2005, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,370
    Francesco Devittori
    Dec 21, 2005
  5. Oliver Batchelor
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    388
    Frank Schmitt
    Jul 22, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page