Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.alt.net!not-for-mail From: owl Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,sci.physics Subject: Re: Some people don't want a _desktop_ PC. Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 23:24:57 +0000 (UTC) Organization: O.W.L. Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.rooftop.invalid Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: tin/2.2.1-20140504 ("Tober an Righ") (UNIX) (Linux/3.16.0-4-amd64 (x86_64)) Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:332739 sci.physics:532533 In comp.os.linux.advocacy Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Fabian Russell wrote: > >> On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:51:13 -0700, Snit wrote: >> >>> >>> Why do you use assembly and not machine code? You are using an >>> abstraction, too. >>> >> >> No, it is not an abstraction. Assembly code is a MNEMONIC, in the >> same way that a web address is a MNEMONIC for IPv4 dotted quad notation >> (i.e. xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx). >> >> Actually I do, or did, use machine code, if machine code is meant >> to be the actual binary numeric vales used to indicate instructions >> to the processor. >> >> Using machine code can be a fun experience, because the actual binary >> values have regular patterns within instruction families. Once these >> pattens are recognized, it becomes easy to rapidly plug those values >> into memory. >> >> With practice, writing assembly code can be a very fast process, >> and also even MUCH EASIER than crafting high level code. This >> is because there are no crazy syntax issues to deal with or >> remember. > > Bullshit. I have written assembler code several years. It has its place, > even now. But it is idiotic to even imply it might be used instead of high- > level languages. Especially OO languages Doesn't 7 use it to optimize SQL queries?