Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #12312 > unrolled thread

Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer "a.owens@novartisoft.com" <a.owens@novartisoft.com> - 2011-10-30 19:47 -0700
    Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer jgharston <jgh@arcade.demon.co.uk> - 2011-10-31 07:05 -0700
      Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 07:38 -0700
        Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer jgharston <jgh@arcade.demon.co.uk> - 2011-10-31 08:51 -0700
          Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-10-31 16:39 +0000
            Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-31 12:58 -0400
              Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer Ark <akhasin@macroexpressions.com> - 2011-11-04 04:51 -0400
            Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer Acid Washed China Blue Jeans <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-31 10:28 -0700
            Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer Frederick Williams <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 17:55 +0000
              Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 06:29 -0700
                Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-01 14:49 +0100
                  Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-01 14:23 +0000
                  Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 07:41 +1300
                  Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 15:43 -0700
                  Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 07:07 -0700
                    Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-04 08:30 -0700
                      Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 09:13 -0700
                        Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-06 21:50 +0000
                      Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-04 16:37 +0000
                      Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-11-04 13:01 -0500
                        Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-04 11:27 -0700
                        Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-04 15:36 -0700
                          Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-05 11:46 +1300
                            Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-04 16:31 -0700
                              Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-05 12:52 +1300
                                Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-04 17:21 -0700
                                  Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-05 13:55 +1300
                                    Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-04 23:23 -0700
                                    Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-05 04:21 -0700
                                      Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-06 07:40 +0000
                                        Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-11-06 09:35 +0100
                                        Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-06 16:34 +0000
                                        Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-06 12:47 -0700
                                Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-05 00:31 +0000
                  Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-05 02:29 -0700
            Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-10-31 13:03 -0700
            Re: Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-11-04 13:12 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#12312 — Looking for experienced C/C++ / ASM programmer

For more information please contact a.owens {} novartisoft dt com,
minimum 5 years experience candidates only please, work at home
project based work, well paid
thank you

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#12346

Which assembler?

JGH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12347

On 10/31/2011 7:05 AM, jgharston wrote:
> Which assembler?
>

and what sort of job?...


my case:
I know x86 and x86-64 ASM, and am sort-of familiar with ARM.
my personal preference is Intel-style syntax (such as NASM), but am not 
so fond of GAS syntax.

(I have my own assembler as well, which uses an NASM-like syntax, and 
supports x86 and x86-64, and partly supports ARM).

I have been writing code in C for about 15 years or so.
some experience with C++, but it isn't my main-use language.

major areas of familiarity:
compiler and VM technology (wrote a C compiler for a VM, created a 
custom script language, experience with writing interpreters and JIT 
compilers);
3D engines and tools (wrote 3D modeling and skeletal animation tools, 
wrote an FPS / First-Person-Shooter style 3D engine, ...);
in the past (late 90s/early 2000s), I once wrote a basic OS (for x86, 
mostly using the PE/COFF format for binaries, was on early stages of GUI 
development when I dropped the project due to lack of foreseeable 
relevance);
...

actually, said 3D engine and VM projects contain many of remnants of 
code from the OS project (some parts, such as the VFS / 
Virtual-File-System subsystem, retain the concept of FS drivers, 
although some years back the VFS was partly rewritten/simplified, ...).

or such...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12359

BGB wrote:
> jgharston wrote:
> > Which assembler?
> and what sort of job?...

Too often HR droids think "assembler" means x86 without realising
there's dozens of specific assembler.

I've programmed in 6502, Z80, 6809, 32016, ARM, PDP-11 as well
as x86, but I doubt they'd realise they were also all "assembler"
even if you dropped it on them from as great height.

JGH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12369

"jgharston" <jgh@arcade.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:ae2417a7-feb6-413b-be40-4080484ff340@g7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
> BGB wrote:
>> jgharston wrote:
>> > Which assembler?
>> and what sort of job?...
>
> Too often HR droids think "assembler" means x86 without realising
> there's dozens of specific assembler.
>
> I've programmed in 6502, Z80, 6809, 32016, ARM, PDP-11 as well
> as x86, but I doubt they'd realise they were also all "assembler"
> even if you dropped it on them from as great height.

What do you think the chances are of them wanting pdp-11 or z80 programmers?

-- 
Bartc 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12373

On 10/31/2011 12:39 PM, BartC wrote:
> 
> 
> "jgharston" <jgh@arcade.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:ae2417a7-feb6-413b-be40-4080484ff340@g7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
>> BGB wrote:
>>> jgharston wrote:
>>>> Which assembler?
>>> and what sort of job?...
>>
>> Too often HR droids think "assembler" means x86 without realising
>> there's dozens of specific assembler.
>>
>> I've programmed in 6502, Z80, 6809, 32016, ARM, PDP-11 as well
>> as x86, but I doubt they'd realise they were also all "assembler"
>> even if you dropped it on them from as great height.
> 
> What do you think the chances are of them wanting pdp-11 or z80 programmers?

Since they just specified "assembler", without indicating which kind of
assembler experience they're looking for, it seem pretty reasonable to
assume that they don't really know what they want.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12665

On 10/31/2011 12:58 PM, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 10/31/2011 12:39 PM, BartC wrote:

> Since they just specified "assembler", without indicating which kind of
> assembler experience they're looking for, it seem pretty reasonable to
> assume that they don't really know what they want.

OTOH, Any assembly programming takes understanding of "how machines 
work", willingness to read data sheets, etc. That's portable across 
architectures. Knowledge of instruction sets, register stalls etc. is 
easier acquired. People very seldom need a stellar assembler programmer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12381

In article <j8mj15$5j5$1@dont-email.me>, "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

> "jgharston" <jgh@arcade.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:ae2417a7-feb6-413b-be40-4080484ff340@g7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
> > BGB wrote:
> >> jgharston wrote:
> >> > Which assembler?
> >> and what sort of job?...
> >
> > Too often HR droids think "assembler" means x86 without realising
> > there's dozens of specific assembler.
> >
> > I've programmed in 6502, Z80, 6809, 32016, ARM, PDP-11 as well
> > as x86, but I doubt they'd realise they were also all "assembler"
> > even if you dropped it on them from as great height.
> 
> What do you think the chances are of them wanting pdp-11 or z80 programmers?

CDC 6600 and 3300 COMPASS.

-- 
White folks think they're at the top,  |   Faded, patched, secret so tight...
ask any proud white male.              |       I'm whoever you want me to be.
A million years of evolution,          |  Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
and we get Danny Quayle.               |    At least I can stay in character.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12384

BartC wrote:
 
> What do you think the chances are of them wanting pdp-11 or z80 programmers?

I have PLAN experience, if that's any help!

-- 
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by 
this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12443

On Oct 31, 5:55 pm, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
> BartC wrote:
> > What do you think the chances are of them wanting pdp-11 or z80 programmers?
>
> I have PLAN experience, if that's any help!

ICL 1900 series.

How about Myriad User Code?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12445

Le 01/11/11 14:29, Nick Keighley a écrit :
> On Oct 31, 5:55 pm, Frederick Williams<freddywilli...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>> BartC wrote:
>>> What do you think the chances are of them wanting pdp-11 or z80 programmers?
>>
>> I have PLAN experience, if that's any help!
>
> ICL 1900 series.
>
> How about Myriad User Code?

One of the big problems of old people is that they tend to live
in the past.

ANY discussion in this group leads to

"And in machine XXX (dead since at least 20 years) bytes were
8.75 bits, remember that eh?"

This has nothing with remembering history but everything
with seeking to revive "old memories of yore".

I have nothing against old people but as I age, I try to
stay away from old age's pitfalls, in the same way as when I was young
I tried to avoid young age's pitfalls.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12447

"jacob navia" <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote in message 
news:j8ote4$ghj$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> Le 01/11/11 14:29, Nick Keighley a écrit :
>> On Oct 31, 5:55 pm, Frederick Williams<freddywilli...@btinternet.com>
>> wrote:
>>> BartC wrote:
>>>> What do you think the chances are of them wanting pdp-11 or z80 
>>>> programmers?
>>>
>>> I have PLAN experience, if that's any help!
>>
>> ICL 1900 series.
>>
>> How about Myriad User Code?
>
> One of the big problems of old people is that they tend to live
> in the past.
>
> ANY discussion in this group leads to
>
> "And in machine XXX (dead since at least 20 years) bytes were
> 8.75 bits, remember that eh?"

We didn't even have bytes...

-- 
Bartc

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12466

On 11/ 2/11 02:49 AM, jacob navia wrote:
>
> I have nothing against old people but as I age, I try to
> stay away from old age's pitfalls, in the same way as when I was young
> I tried to avoid young age's pitfalls.

So you adopted middle-age pitfalls ant a young age and you've stuck with 
them?

-- 
Ian Collins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12494

On 11/1/2011 6:49 AM, jacob navia wrote:
> Le 01/11/11 14:29, Nick Keighley a écrit :
>> On Oct 31, 5:55 pm, Frederick Williams<freddywilli...@btinternet.com>
>> wrote:
>>> BartC wrote:
>>>> What do you think the chances are of them wanting pdp-11 or z80
>>>> programmers?
>>>
>>> I have PLAN experience, if that's any help!
>>
>> ICL 1900 series.
>>
>> How about Myriad User Code?
>
> One of the big problems of old people is that they tend to live
> in the past.
>
> ANY discussion in this group leads to
>
> "And in machine XXX (dead since at least 20 years) bytes were
> 8.75 bits, remember that eh?"
>
> This has nothing with remembering history but everything
> with seeking to revive "old memories of yore".
>
> I have nothing against old people but as I age, I try to
> stay away from old age's pitfalls, in the same way as when I was young
> I tried to avoid young age's pitfalls.
>

most of my life, x86 has been the dominant architecture.
back when I was young (as in, early elementary-school years / early 90s, 
originally learning how to use computers) DOS was still a major OS, 
though at this point being displaced by Windows...

I guess maybe in the early 90s x86 was battling off m68k or similar, but 
Macs were fairly rare IME (IIRC, most people just had PCs...).


I was alive during part of the 80s, but FWIW I don't remember it.


sadly, I am getting fairly old now as well...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12675

On Nov 1, 1:49 pm, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:

> ANY discussion in this group leads to
>
> "And in machine XXX (dead since at least 20 years) bytes were
> 8.75 bits, remember that eh?"

Who the hell writes x86 assembler professionally these days though?
Video codec writers, perhaps.  Everyone else, if they're forced into
writing assembly, its almost always because the target processor is
*not* a general purpose.

Clue: The x86 and its descendants are not the most widely produced
microprocessors in the world - and it isn't even close - even for
things that are, loosely, general purpose computers.   And, given that
smartphones and tablets and the like appear to be future, that gap is
going to widen, and not close.

So, if you're going to talk chip-specific assembler, and you're not
using an ARM instruction set, you're talking about a niche market.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12683

On 11/4/2011 7:07 AM, gwowen wrote:
> On Nov 1, 1:49 pm, jacob navia<ja...@spamsink.net>  wrote:
>
>> ANY discussion in this group leads to
>>
>> "And in machine XXX (dead since at least 20 years) bytes were
>> 8.75 bits, remember that eh?"
>
> Who the hell writes x86 assembler professionally these days though?
> Video codec writers, perhaps.  Everyone else, if they're forced into
> writing assembly, its almost always because the target processor is
> *not* a general purpose.
>

lots of people write x86 assembler...

at this point, it is probably because there are still things one may 
want to do in a program, which are not readily possible (or practical) 
purely within C or similar, so someone needs ASM to make it work correctly.

performance is sometimes a motivation, probably more often it is to 
either use HW specific features, or to work around some natural limits 
in how C works and is implemented on processors.


a simple example would be writing a general purpose "apply" function, 
where one calls a function pointer with an arbitrary (only known at 
runtime) argument list.

in C, this essentially requires a (potentially massive) switch 
statement, which requires converting the argument list into a number, 
... and generally ends up kind of slow, and adding a fair amount of size 
to the final binary.

in ASM, the task is much more straightforward.
hence, ASM ends up being preferable here.

likewise, going the reverse, and for things like constructing lambdas 
(which look/behave like ordinary function pointers), ...

maybe:
try to write a pure C implementation of something like setjmp/longjmp;
...


> Clue: The x86 and its descendants are not the most widely produced
> microprocessors in the world - and it isn't even close - even for
> things that are, loosely, general purpose computers.   And, given that
> smartphones and tablets and the like appear to be future, that gap is
> going to widen, and not close.
>

people say that "smartphones/tablets/... as future", however this seems 
unlikely. far more likely, they will be used alongside desktops and 
laptops and like, and after a few years people will wonder why their 
sales drop so much: "oh yeah... market saturation...".

for most small embedded devices, the number of units is misleading, as 
most are non-programmable, so maybe a few people produce the original 
software for a given device, but they run off millions of units. doesn't 
mean that this constitutes a larger amount of total work (by 
programmers), only that a large number of units have been produced.


> So, if you're going to talk chip-specific assembler, and you're not
> using an ARM instruction set, you're talking about a niche market.

x86 is likely still most commonly used, even for assembler.
ARM probably comes in second, and most of this is likely people writing 
software for Android or similar, and doing something which needs ASM.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12691

On Nov 4, 3:30 pm, BGB <cr88...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > So, if you're going to talk chip-specific assembler, and you're not
> > using an ARM instruction set, you're talking about a niche market.
>
> x86 is likely still most commonly used, even for assembler.

By volume, ARM chips massively outsell x86 chips, and most of those
are used on devices so diverse that each one will be require bespoke
code - frequently in assembler (especially for the chips with little
memory). The x86 chips will run Windows or some Unix-like OS, which
means even the bespoke code will be compiled [C/C++/Fortran], byte-
compiled [Java, C#] or interpreted (VB, Perl, Python). No-one writes
CGI/SQL in assembly. Some numerical codes will have highly tuned  core
code in assembly (to exploit SIMD, etc) but even that is increasingly
being devolved to massively parallel GPU-code [CUDA, etc].

So tell me, how on earth do you reach the conclusion that "x86 is
likely still most commonly used, even for assembler"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12833

"gwowen" <gwowen@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:7ca99b74-77b0-41fe-8941-9715d9675624@a12g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 4, 3:30 pm, BGB <cr88...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > So, if you're going to talk chip-specific assembler, and you're not
>> > using an ARM instruction set, you're talking about a niche market.
>>
>> x86 is likely still most commonly used, even for assembler.
>
> By volume, ARM chips massively outsell x86 chips, and most of those
> are used on devices so diverse that each one will be require bespoke
> code - frequently in assembler (especially for the chips with little
> memory). The x86 chips will run Windows or some Unix-like OS, which
> means even the bespoke code will be compiled [C/C++/Fortran], byte-
> compiled [Java, C#] or interpreted (VB, Perl, Python).

I spend a lot of time messing with interpreters. I found that you need to 
have a lot of assembly to achieve a decent execution speed; optimising 
compilers are just not clever enough.

Once that's done, then actual applications will be written in the language 
that's being interpreted.

But, someone has to be doing the assembly coding to start with though! 
(Python in particular could have done with some instead of being in pure C.)

-- 
bartc

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12696

On 2011-11-04, BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> wrote:
> lots of people write x86 assembler...

Can you put that into some kind of numbers?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12706

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 08:30:03 -0700, BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> wrote:

>people say that "smartphones/tablets/... as future", however this seems 
>unlikely. far more likely, they will be used alongside desktops and 
>laptops and like, and after a few years people will wonder why their 
>sales drop so much: "oh yeah... market saturation...".


Smartphone shipments started exceeding PC shipments last year.  And
those are all programmable (and does not include feature phones or
tablets).


>for most small embedded devices, the number of units is misleading, as 
>most are non-programmable, so maybe a few people produce the original 
>software for a given device, but they run off millions of units. doesn't 
>mean that this constitutes a larger amount of total work (by 
>programmers), only that a large number of units have been produced.


For the vast majority of users, PC effectively aren't programmable
either - almost all software run on 95% of PCs is written by a "few"
people who then run off "millions" of units.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web