Is there any point in learning assembly language any more? Can you learn the ins and out of computer architecture without learning the ins and outs of a particular assembly language syntax?
>>51269444
>not writing in binary
what are you a human?
>He doesn't know how to program in assembly
lsl
xor yourself
>>51270162
>xor yourself
legend
>>51269444
No.
Learn assembly nigger.
It's not really useful anymore, for the most part. Badly written assembly can be slower than C.
>>51272250
But well written assembly can be faster than anything else.
>>51269444
well, you aren't supposed to write user-facing applications in assembly, although there have been documented cases of students making a graphical chess game in assembly for the raspberry pi.
assembly language is how you move bits of data around for the hardware to do stuff with. it's just an abstraction away from binary, it translates to the instruction sets that processors are designed to handle. you are meant to use assembly for writing the very basic stuff, for example a box that takes input from another pipe, let's call this pipe a GPU, and move it, and redirect it, to where it needs to go inside the CPU.
A better example is probably firmware for a hard disk drive. What does it do? When you think about it, all it really does is take input, and encode it as a series of bits, then sends those bits to special hardware that further encodes that information as magnetic energy stored on a medium that can keep this magnetic state until it is needed - and does the opposite for the output. So, while it may appear archaic, or dazzling, or perhaps, if you are so disinclined, boring or tedious, to look at, it is actually very simple instructions written out in the most direct fashion that can be conceived
>>51272267
True, but complete lack of portability is a major downside.
I've known assembly for a long time, I used it a lot back when I was making stuff for the demoscene.
I think I've found practical (as in non useless pasttimes) use for it once or twice.
It's not worth it, anon.
>>51272314
here
>>51269444
so what unit of measurement takes 1Khz to complete, and is measuerd by the frequency of a quartz crystal? It's the assembly code for a timepiece!
>>51269444
it's good to have done once
just like brainfuck and prolog.
in production absolutely useless in 2015.
>>51272267
efficiency = productivity / wage - runtime * hardware/second
hardware is cheap senpai.
>>51272383
>demoscene
*scoffs* well, if you're not posturing on a chinese cartoon discussion board, and are indeed telling the truth, if you were making any useful software you would have found a use for it. just can't grok it, eh?
>>51272412
all that firmware for the new hardware coming out every day isn't going to write itself (yet*)*that last part was a joke
>>51269444
>that image
So is this what happens on machine level, programs pulse at 1 khz?
>>51272470
we write our firmware in C senpai.
>>51272512
with not even a little bit of FFI or in-line assembly?
>>51269444
Computer Architecture and Assembly are inextricably linked.
>>51272532
not worth it.
the faster chips with more memory are actually cheaper because they're produced in a bigger volume.
You do need assembly lanuage for creating a dynamic recompiler (such as for PCem and PCem-X specific-wise)
>>51272603
This. If you want to be a code monkey, by all means skip it
>>51272665
>PCem-X
are you an 8088 MPH shill too? let's be shills together, the two of us! also trips tells truths
If you're hacking older video games the hard way, knowing your way around assembly is quite useful.
>>51272441
>*scoffs*
I'm probably getting memed on, but I'll bite.
I was only responsible for the music of my team's demos. But as we progressed and got better at what we did, less and less space was left for me to do music. I created my own sound synthesis engines, which were very small, but mostly made for/and usable by one particular song/demo.
Seriously, I've had various software development jobs and I only used assembly (outside of fooling around with little projects) twice. Once helping a friend who was working on an old chip emulator, and once in a CLI utility I made. I don't even remember what it was.
>>51269444
I still think it's useful to be able to "understand" assembly when profiling critical code. Once you've found your critical path, you might figure out what extra operations the compiler is adding that you don't need and refactor appropriately
>>51270162lsl
xor yourself
I actually smiled and almost laughed.
If you need to ask, then know.
But there are plenty of people who require writing in assembly or writing assemblers.
Processors are homogenous today. Back in the day every new computer had a new architecture, but now the majority of computer are x86.
If you were to create some new hardware, then you would need to write an assembler for it, probably.
For computer scientists, the whole point is that you don't need to consider hardware. Computer science is supposed to be an abstract study.
If you're a programmer, then maybe learn WebAssembly if you're bored.
>>51269444
you cant even program in ASM on an OS past Windows XP
>>51269444
If you are into micro-controllers or obscure architectures, then sure.
x86 compilers are just so well documented and optimized. It would be silly to try to outrun them with assembly.
>>51274764
Then how do you explain this?
http://www.libjpeg-turbo.org/About/Performance
>>51274875
explain how a chip-maker uses proprietary software to make use of special features in a chip?
idk man, jew voodoo I guess
Speaking of, could someone help me with this?
I have on clue how/why both my strings are getting smashed together when I try to print them out.
http://pastebin.com/DgiVyxiY
>>51274908
no
use assembly to make a program go sanic
Is this jew voodoo too?
>>51274945
pretty much.
The fastest one there is proprietary, so we might never know. I doubt it is just super optimized assembly. There is some microcode voodoo going on
Understanding assembly and how assembly-like programs work can be very helpful, even (especially) if you aren't learning a "real" instruction set (x86 etc).
Learning exactly how the stack and the heap work is immensely useful if you're writing code in C and C++, even if you aren't going to actually be writing any assembly.
Sometimes you will need to know assembly (none of that "hurr durr micro-optimizations" bs): I just wrote a simple JIT compilation library which obviously required knowledge of the x86 instruction set and how function calls work in C++
>>51274636
>People like this exist
