Assembly language programming in unix environment

[Dick Dowdell]

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 6:16 AM, freeburn <hossain at finder-lbs.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> > Freeburn,
> >
> > Where did you get the idea that AMD processors were somehow more
> > difficult to program than Intel processors? They both use the Intel
> > instruction set.  With the exception of short periods of time when one
> > vendor is catching up with the other (and has yet to implement new
> > instruction set extensions) they are, for all practical purposes,
> > identical.  AMD has built its business on being code compatible with
> > Intel.  When one installs Ubuntu, one decides whether to install the
> > 32-bit versus the 64-bit version, not whether to install Intel or AMD.
> >
> > As a developer, with 30+ years in the business, I have worked with
> > RISC processors such as the IBM PowerPC --- and yes assembly language
> > coding is more tedious.  Funny thing, C compilers eliminated the
> > difference.  Another reason that assembly language lost its economic
> > appeal.  For 99.99% of commercial programming, it is more cost
> > effective to minimize the need to deal with hardware differences.
> > I've had to fire more than one programmer who refused to learn that
> > lesson and chose to waste time and money squeezing the last bit of
> > performance from an already fast processor.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dick Dowdell
>
>
> see i don't know much about AMD specifically. i knew that risc assembly
> is more tedious. and i thought that amd falls into that category also.
> and i've understood that "coding" is not necessarily harder. although my
> argument was for assembly language not for "c". and still i think
> assembly should be known in order to understand the microprocessor. i
> have not studied compilers yet, but from my understanding a compiler
> should require some sort asm codes(correct me if i wrong). and what
> about the kernel or device drivers? they also should require some asm to
> interface with the hardware. if they were made entirely in c ,
> efficiency should be a question there. this should be true for embedded
> systems also.
>
>
> --
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>

Freeburn,

At one time, your assertion that learning assembly language helps one to
understand processors, was useful and true---I once made a good living
writing IBM 360/370 BAL code.  I question whether it is of use to 99% of the
people programming today.  Software development productivity has risen in
proportion to the increase in the level of abstraction at which the
programmer works.  Higher development productivity means lower development
costs and shortened time to market---both very important in business.

Most of the systems I've worked on in the last 10 years have been written in
Java.  Not because Java is the most machine-efficient language, but because,
when written properly, it can maximize code reusability and maximize
portability among operating systems and database management systems.
Computers used to be expensive and labor cheap.  Now the reverse is true.
My advice to a new programmer is to focus on software engineering skills not
specific programming languages.  If one is a good software engineer, one can
pick up new languages quickly.  If one is a poor software engineer, one will
write poor code, no matter what the language.

Regards,
Dick Dowdell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20090921/8b2a14da/attachment.html>