Assembly language programming in unix environment

[Mike McMullin]

On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 13:59 -0400, Michael Comperchio wrote:
> Dick Dowdell wrote: 
> > On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 3:19 AM, freeburn <hossain at finder-lbs.com>
> > wrote:
> >         i've been using netbeans for c/c++/java/python/php. I've
> >         just completed
> >         a course on microprocessor and assembly language. in my
> >         university we
> >         were taught using assembly with c/c++ in MS visual C++. we
> >         were
> >         basically taught various DOS application using assembly/c/c
> >         ++. but as i
> >         dont actually give a damn about Windoze, i wanna learn
> >         assembly language
> >         in unix environment. which programming environment should i
> >         use(cause
> >         netbeans can't handle c/c++ codes with "_asm" blocks, and i
> >         dont have
> >         much experience with gcc command line options.) . what
> >         about  "nasm "?
> >         can it handle _asm blocks in c/c++ codes or it jsut a pure
> >         assembler
> >         like MASM.
> >         
> >         
> >         --
> >         ubuntu-users mailing list
> >         ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> >         Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> >         https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
> > 
> > 30+ years ago I fell in love with the IBM 360 assembly language.
> > Compared to the COBOL then used by most business programmers, it was
> > amazingly powerful.  If it could be done by a computer, I could
> > write it.
> > 
> > However, there is a reason that little is written in assembly
> > language today.  Linux itself is written in C/C++ because those
> > languages are as expressive as assembly language without the
> > limitations of processor specificity and with a treasure trove of
> > standardized re-usable code libraries.  Linux has the advantage of
> > running on multiple processor families and with both 32 and 64-bit
> > addressing.  Assembly language code is too processor-specific.
> Yep. I went to a two year technical school here in CT, USA, where they
> churned out business programmers. The first programming course was
> 360/370 assembler. Three required semesters of that.. only two of
> Cobol, and two of RPG. Learning to code in assembler should still be
> the first programming course. You learn how the processors work ( and
> they DO all work in basically the same way ) which makes later design,
> coding and DEBUGGING! much more efficient.
> 
> Of course, today it really would be a waste of time and effort to
> write things in assembly, unless, of course, you're getting paid by
> the hour!... and can find someone willing to pay!

  True, I've found that programmers who are solid in assembly tend to
write more efficient programs in other languages.