Assembly language programming in unix environment

[Dick Dowdell]

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Kipton Moravec <kip at kdream.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 12:20 -0400, Dick Dowdell wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>
> Unfortunately reuse of code and not code efficiency is being done in
> operating systems more and more too. That is why Vista is such big and
> heavy operating system. They do not care about performance, but ease of
> coding, so machines that run fine with XP choke under Vista.
>
> The tendency is the same direction in Linux, however there are more
> people working to make it work faster, so the code bloat is more
> restrained. It is there, but the rate of increase is much lower than
> with Microsoft.
>
> An example is the difference between Ubuntu and Xubuntu. Xubuntu was
> supposed to be a lighter weight version of Ubuntu, for older machines.
> It used X windows instead of Gnome. Turns out Xubuntu takes more RAM
> than Ubuntu. Probably because there are more people working on Ubuntu to
> make it more efficient. And not so many people are working on Xubuntu,
> so they worry about just getting something to work and code reuse.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Kipton Moravec AE5IB .- . ..... .. -...
> ==============================================
> Four Way Test
> Is it the Truth?
> Is it Fair to all concerned?
> Will it build Goodwill and Better Friendships?
> Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?
> - Herbert J Taylor (1932)
>
>
>
>
> --
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>

Kipton,

That's kind of an apples and oranges comparison.  Of course OS code needs to
be tight and run efficiently.  By the way. in real terms, Vista runs fine on
modern equipment.  Windows 7 runs better.  I'd rather use Mac OS 10.6.1 or
Ubuntu 9.04.  In any event, the problem with bloated software is poor
software engineering, not code reuse and portability.

Regards,
Dick Dowdell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20090921/7a910c39/attachment.html>