Re: A92: ASM Help


[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: A92: ASM Help




At 12:27 12/01/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
>>Why on earth everybody say that assembly in more difficult than C++ ??
>>Is it more difficult to know 50 operands than around 10 000 Win32
functions ?
>>With assembly, you can do everything !! Not with other language
>>(except if they include inline assembly or objects files compiled with
>>an assembler)
>>It is true that programming in assembly often freeze the calc, but
>>with a debugger, I don't know where is the problem : once you
>>manage to see how works the processor, the memory, the I/O...
>>you are able to do evrything, isn't it ?
>
>Time for my 45,000 YEN...
>
>I agree that ASSEMBLY tends to be the most versatile.  Since you are at
>the lowest level, you can directly control what the processor is doing.
>This allows assembly programs to be quite optimized in how they interact
>with memory and I/O.  Higher level languages in general allow you to write
>a program without concerning yourself with the actual interaction with the
>processor.  Some language implementations allow you to specify assembler
>code, and this now lets you fine tune sections of the program where you
>really need the more direct interaction.  In either case, assembly is the
>ONLY language that allows the programmer FULL control.
>
>As for the difficulty of languages, I feel that it is always a personal
>matter.  Programming is nothing more than problem solving.  When you can
>define the problem and develop a solution, you are a programmer.  A true
>programmer can design this solution apart from specific languages, so that
>when the solution is complete the best language can be selected.  When a
>person has difficulty with a language, it is almost always related to the
>decision of the best implementation of the solution.  Granted that when
>your calculator crashes, that slows down the process.  However this is only
>a programming hassle, which is not related to ANY specific language.
>
>I would hope that in the future, when someone asks how more difficult is a
>language from another, that we make it clear that it is always a personal
>case.  We can give our OPINIONS; but never force a language into a specific
>category.
YES !

>P.S. Win32 functions and other RUNTIME functions are ON TOP of the C/C++
>     languages and not part of the language.  Language should refer to the
>     basic syntax, which includes expressions, statements, and other
>     elements related to lexical conventions and basic concepts.  This does
>     sound complicated, but just remember that you can't blame the C/C++
>     LANGUAGE if the Win32 function call is bizarre.
yes of course.
 


References: