What is Digg?67 Comments
- Robotsu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29linkedList1 said, "If you're starting to learn you should start high level ;)"
I disagree. Working with a basic 8-bit microprocessor in assembly teaches you amazing amounts about how computer internals work. I would say starting at that level, then working up to C is an excellent way to learn. - safiire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23However irrelevant some people might think assembly language programming is, knowing what is going on at this level has done nothing but help me.
Good link, thanks. I like seeing these sorts of things on Digg. - Werrismys, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17>++++++[<++++++++++>-]<++++++.>++++[<++++++++++>-]<++++++++.>
+[<---------->-]<-------.++++++++.+++++.--------.>+[<++++++++++>-]
<+++++.>+[<---------->-]<--------.++++++++.>+++++++[<---------->-]
<-----.>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<++.+++.---------.-------.>+
[<++++++++++>-]<++++.>++++++++[<---------->-]<--.>++[<---------->-]<---.
***** source for a program that prints out '***** rules!' - Mirag3, on 10/12/2007, -4/+141994 called, they want their webdesign back.
- thingylab, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10The article should more appropriately be named "Learning x86 assembly", as opposed to PowerPC assembly, or PIC assembly. (Well, I think. The site isn't even very clear about that.)
Just as a reminder, an assembly is very much tied to the underlying platform, and intel x86 isn't the only one out there. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Thanks for posting this:)
I'm actually gathering tutorials on programming languages for further usage. - Brahma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"Unless you enjoy accidentally zeroing out large chunks of RAM on accident, assembly is not for you."
You couldn't be more wrong.
Try debugging some really weired exceptions like memory leaks. You will understand why you need Assembly.
Try making some technical decisions. You will know why you need assembly.
Try to understand the fundamentals of any High level language. You will know why you need assembly.
I can go on and on.. - Koloss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Another good resource for all masochistic programmers out there:
http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/bf/ - Markie1006, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8So you learned nothing?
Assembly is good for learning the nitty gritty of what goes on under the hood, and makes you a much more efficient coder with high level languages. - mercurysquad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7And for the really twisted programmers out there who have "seen it all", I recommend this:
http://www.dangermouse.net/esoteric/
Also don't forget to Google for the Juliet programming language! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Assembly is good. It seems useless at a firtst sight, especially if you're coding for a x86 processor (there's no need to use it on a normal PC nowadays). but if you'll be working on different systems (such as pxa-type handled processor or big industrial devices for automatic controls) all that not-very-meaningful assembly will be gold.
- posure, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@linkedList
Starting with high level languages is a bad idea. People should start with at least C or C++ so that they have a better idea of what is happening underneath the language (ASM would be good too, but not entirely necessary). Also, C++ knowledge is required for many jobs out there. I have many friends who go to schools that teach Java/C# as the primary language and all of them are having an extremely difficult time trying to learn C++ simply because they started with high level languages. Not that Java and C# are bad languages, its just much easier to move from C/C++ to Java/C# than the other way around.
Also, ASM is pretty fun. Its a pain in the ass but it is very rewarding. We programmed robots back in college, it was pretty sweet. - noseeme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Quick tip:
Think like a computer. :) - rockrapdude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5actually there are uses for assembly today.you can write drivers in asm.you can write trainers for games in asm.there are a lot of uses for it.and snes and nes games were writen in it.ps2 graphics too
- Geekazoid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I don't think Assembly is as useless as some people think it is. at the career fair at my college NVidia has us take an Assembly test before talking to them.
- deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yep that's exactly why I sat down and learned it when I was about 14. I can't write a lick of ASM these days but knowing how things work at the lowest levels helped me understand computer architecture in general. Everyone with interest in computers should read this tutorial.
- bpapa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Indeed, this is somehow just a bit more interesting than Office Max and USB mem sticks.
- FlunkedFlank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Even better than bf:
http://compsoc.dur.ac.uk/whitespace/ - albybum, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6That interface on your cell phone wasn't exactly written in C# :)
Assembly is still common in game development, drivers, and for embedded applications. - ArmchairAthlete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4What I've seen/done with assembly in school is interesting, and it gives you a better understanding of how a computer works with no "magic" making things work. Close to the metal so to speak. But it isn't for those who haven't coded before, and few will use it for much besides learning. Keep in mind it will be tedious to do pretty much anything.
The LC-3 wasn't a real machine but simulated and simpler to work with. - Brahma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@jma06
Normally I wouldn't have bothered to reply..But your rejoinders were so stupid that I had to.
It is clear that you are one of those developers who like to scratch the surface. When has any stack given you out of memory exceptions. For that matter try doing some multithreading programming and see if you can ever find out which thread aborted abruptly and where is there any deadlock. Of course there are tools for these but then they internally use many of the low level OS features.
If you consider everything in programming technical, I am sorry I have no answer for you. Getting bookish knowledge is one thing but when you actually see things the way they work, it is far more enriching. You need to get a grip.
If you say you know the fundamentals of any HLL could you tell me what is the difference between the way objects are initialized (Constructor invocation) in Java as against C#. In which scenario would one perform faster than the other. Why does making a certain type of call in the HLL take inordinate amount of time..
Yes..I can go on and on but I have no intention of humoring you. - jschrab, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Learning assembly on old architectures can be a very humbling experience. After a summer of 6502 coding on my C64, my respect for game developers on that machine rose to a high level. 16-bit math was ... a pain ("I just wanna add two dumb numbers together!") But in a strange puzzle-solving way, it was a fun thing to do.
Now the wizards that did their games for the Atari 2600 - they weren't human. Couldn't have been. Alien intelligence. Had to be. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Meh Malbolge rules.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malbolge - AngryBoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If you're using the GNU compiler, you can use the -S flag to have gcc spit out assembly language instead of compiled code. It's a great way to learn how the compiler does optimizations and such.
- hbweb500, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Some people may think ASM is irrelevant, but, like you said, it gives you a deeper understanding of programming.
Plus, some platforms, like TI calculators, only offer Assembly programming. I remember the days of codings 1000s of lines of assembly, and how much more prepared I was for learning new languages because of my experience in low level. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I agree with Erkan...
While there are no doubts as to how fundamental the knowledge of this language is so essential if anybody needs to really understand, what I have seen is that most people these days go straight up to Java to start their earning careers. And I have seen people who are atleast 3-4 years old in programming and don't know about hex. But the point is that for most of them there simple isnt enough monetary reasons to code in assembly. And in places where you really need assembly to get over a few performance pitfalls, no amount of tutorials can benefit a newbie, experience with it will just not be enough.
all in all, it's 10-15 years late. - morninglorii, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3One of my favorite things about learning assembly language was going back and doing OO afterwards, for two reasons.
1. Rules that used to seem "arbitrary" make a lot more sense now. I understand exactly what's going on when I make an array, when I make a method/function, when I convert an integer to a float (or vice versa), and tons of other things. Sure, I could still program without knowing, but knowing makes me feel more confident in my programming decisions, instead of the "Hmm... this uses less lines of code, maybe it will be faster" instinct I used to go by.
2. It makes you appreciate it more. It's like driving a car for the first few years of your license-possessing life, then switching to a unicycle for a year, then getting your car back. It's amazing how it feels to do something as simple as convert numbers to different bases and print them out in C++/Java after killing yourself trying to get it right in Assembly (ESPECIALLY if you try to implement the backspace key!) - headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Try the book Assembly Language Step by Step. Great resource for learning how a computer works at the bit level (and learning assembly). It's an old book, and deals with 386 CPUs, but it's written well, and it's easy to follow. So it's a good baby step for getting into assembly.
- swazooe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://www.xs4all.nl/~smit/asm01001.htm
that seems easier to follow. - Stewage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Isn't Steve Gibson's Spinrite coded in Assembly?
- Kaglan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2(On whether to start with high level or low level languages.)
I think it would depend very much on why you are learning to program. If you're learning to program "as a tool only," for example as a non-computer-science professional like a physicist or an analyst, learning high-level techniques directly probably makes more sense. Computer scientists can focus on their specialty (compiler design and optimization, for example), and you can focus on yours (whatever your area of business or research happens to be).
I had a teacher in a "programming for engineers class" who emphasized that we should use standard library methods and data structures whenever possible, because although it might be possible for us to write something better, it wasn't very likely, and it would be a waste of our time and physics/engineering skills -- time and skills which should instead be dedicated to writing more or better physics into the model. The argument makes sense to me. Of course, he was intimately involved with c++ standard library development, so maybe he was a little biased :-). - ellisgl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I've read the AoA - but it left a lot to desire..
- digid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think a good resource for understand assembly is by using SPIM(http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~larus/spim.html)
It is a MIPS emulator which you can write assembly programs for. The great thing about it is that its easy to monitor how the registers are changing. - albybum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Most Super NES games were written in Assembly as well. I believe ASM was pretty common for Playstation games as well. When I started learning 16 bit ASM, it boggled my mind how anyone (even teams of developers) could actually have the time to write something that complex in Assembly.
ASM really gave me a strong appreciation of what compilers for higher level languages actually do to make our lives easier. - Rayor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I've never used Assembly before but I do know on of my favorite programs, zSNES, was written in it.
- stalky14, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I think the Intel architecture is pretty much solely responsible for the popularity of C. Intel chose such a non-intuitive way of doing so many things (target THEN source?!). If Motorola had won the 90's, I think things would be a lot different. (PPC doesn't count. Ever seen a PPC programming manual? RISC, my ass!)
- Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Oh dear Science, not Assembly. This brings back bad memories of Computer Science class in University...
exams with writing out entire programs on paper with pencil. *shudder* - erikuma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nice assembly programming sources! Good grief! I digg this:)
- ArmchairAthlete, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2And C too... gotta love zsnes.
- CodeWarriorK, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This is also a good page to start with assembler programming.
http://www.lrr.in.tum.de/~jasmin/
It contains some very good tutorials and a nice program to test them.
Here is the sourceforge-page of the project:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/tum-jasmin/ - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I blogged your blog post about this other post about this tutorial, you can read it here: www.areyouanidiot.ofcourseiam.org
happy (please go get a) life. - BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nice and useful, programmers getting an understanding of assembly language is good for all of programmer-kind.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ive been learning 6502 "just because". It does give you more insight to how things operate, but its not really practical anymore. If you want to do "low" level programming that is practical, why not mess around with learning byte code like MSIL? Then you can write your favorite language for the .NET / MONO platform.
- Nitron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I personally enjoy 6502 and ARM assembly languages the most. 68k is alright and although Alpha is really cool, it's a bit of a pain.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1nice compiler with alot of examples
http://www.emu8086.com/ - mbiesz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@mercurysquad: Lots of hidden gems! My favorite is the Mondrian-inspired "Piet":
http://www.dangermouse.net/esoteric/piet/samples.html - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thank you! =)
- johnnyhay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thanks for the link.
Also see, www.eecs.harvard.edu/~ellard/Courses/cs50-asm.pdf - bengrine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.sandpile.org/
- Ulvund, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If you are new to assembly languages you might want to consider starting with SPARC.
It's has a simple instruction set. -
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is