i found this article by Joseph M. Newcomer
thought you guys might get a kick out of it :P
(http://www.flounder.com/jmn.gif)
http://www.flounder.com/getdlgitem.htm
QuoteIt makes about as much sense to use GetDlgItem in C++/MFC as it does to
program Windows in assembly code. Yes, I know there are masochists who
like to program Windows in assembly code. But it is rare that it is actually
needed. Perhaps in the inner loop of a DSP algorithm, where you might
drop a few of those fancy Pentium III opcodes inline, but the rest of the
time it is insanity. The same is true of GetDlgItem. Actually, there is slightly
more reason to use a raw GetDlgItem than there is to use assembly code,
but the reasons represent rare and very uncommon cases.
What a dickhead... if you do not use explicit code (hmmm Assembly of course), you'll spend the same amount of time debugging it because you'll know zippo about the underlying causes of the bugs - but you'll spend time learning about it... :wink
Soooo spend the same amount of time doing it properly in the first place.... VIOLA!!!! THE PENNY DROPS!!!!...what else is there ? :lol
hi is just the ideologist of the consumer society in the programming.
His article is really worth reading. He demonstrates clearly how hilariously complicated C++ code is - for masochists only :dazzled:
Well, being a certified insane masochist I tend towards assembly for Windows. Since I am not only insane but actually completely twisted I usually shy away from macros and the particular flavour of assembly that I use is sparse in high level constructs (for now, run-time conditionals are imminent).
That said, I like this guy. He managed to take a simple one line instruction that returned usable data, convert it to several complicated lines of C++ code and various header tricks and call it "simpler", it takes balls to do something like that. It's sort of like undertaking the redesign of a water balloon and ending up with the nuclear weapon, slight level of over engineering there.
Now you know what the programming environment was like when Iczelion and I started the MASM32 Project in 1997. You on and off hear this "politically correct" nonsense but back then you silenced the bullsh*t with small fast missile software that had all of the GUI goodies, was one tenth the size and ran at speeds that left these guys wetting themselves. The "numb silence" response made the point, the rest was propaganda.
The problem was both then and now that folks who spruke nonsense like this have little experience in direct API coding and probably none in assembler programming under Win32. Most had vague memories of cobbling together a few DOS interrupts for some crapheap compiler back in the DOS era. Every tool has its place, its just that some last far longer than others, if you could write DOS 16 bit assembler in 1990, it will not take you all that long to learn later protected mode programming in assembler but its hard to explain what the programming skills in ADA[tm] or VB (1 - 6) left you with.
For all of its difficulties low level programming has this much going for it, its effectively free of the clutter of many of the later OOP(S) languages and you actually know what is going on when you write a procedure, try and fix a broken "object" buried three levels deep in a gaggle of DLLs or OCXs and you will understand why having low level API and ASM access makes sense.
and...
ASM is more fun than all those high-level crapilers :P
when i look at C source, i find myself saying, "how boring" - lol
Thats prob. because you dream in assembler Dave.. :wink I myself have had dreams where I am working logic states. :dazzled:
can't say what i dream about - wifee might not like it - lol
but, it isn't code and it isn't electronics :P
Quote from: dedndave on February 14, 2012, 12:52:20 AM
can't say what i dream about - wifee might not like it - lol
You could be one of those people who claim to never dream, never mind that it's essential for maintaining sanity.
When Windows On ARM is released, x86 programmers might need to learn ARM assembly also
Quote from: bozo on February 14, 2012, 10:08:57 AM
When Windows On ARM is released, x86 programmers might need to learn ARM assembly also
The first of the playing ground should be, the boot sector for that "Pi" device. I have to have it, it only 35USD.
Me too, you could probably turn some router devices into development boards, running DD-WRT for example.
Thinking about using QEMU with Debian port for ARM in the meantime.
Thankfully, someone has already provided pre-built images to get started with:
http://people.debian.org/~aurel32/qemu/
Had looked at Windows CE which would probably run in QEMU too but unsure about MIPS since there's no BIOS
My 2 cents.....
I've been listening to this argument for 40+ years.
I had the unpleasant pleasure of having to write code in Cobol.
What a disgusting language. Then there was PL1, C, C++, Java etc.,etc.
Please leave me to write in the language I like and you write in the language
that pleases you.
Here is my analogy that expresses the difference between assembler and high level
languages:
My neighbor needs an egg. i walk to the frig and get the egg and walk to the fence dividing
our homes and hand her the egg (ASSEMBLER).
I rent an 18 wheeler and park it in front of my house. Package the egg in a 3by3 box so
it won't get broken and haul it out to the 18 wheeler on a dolly. Drive 80 feet to my
neighbor's home and reverse the process. (High Level languages)
Sorry for the rant....
just as long as you aren't choking the chicken, Jack :P
Quote from: bozo on February 14, 2012, 10:08:57 AM
When Windows On ARM is released, x86 programmers might need to learn ARM assembly also
Assemblers aren't that much different from each other... this ones called Thumb and Thumb2.
In going over that lot, I haven't come across a decent Asm IDE package for Thumb.. maybe I've missed it.
:8)
Quote from: vanjastIn going over that lot, I haven't come across a decent Asm IDE package for Thumb.. maybe I've missed it.
Well, Keil, IAR and Rowley are all quite capable of editing, assembling and running pure assembler. Back in the day Microsoft had Platform Builder, Visual Studio for Embedded. Most of the linux stuff assumes you're using make, but supposedly people are using Eclipse too.
I'm expecting Win8 to be using 32-bit ARM, with hardware floating point, both 32-bit and 64-bit, rather than targeting the Cortex M3 and M4 which are purely Thumb/Thumb2 architectures, the M4 available with a 32-bit (float) FPU.
I've noticed that Assembly Language Programmers are the best of the best,...
...Except me, of course,... :dazzled:
My general perception is: if you can do Assembly Programming well,...you can do any higher language like a rock star,...
Quote from: baltoroI've noticed that Assembly Language Programmers are the best of the best,...
They certainly have a better idea of how things actually work.
I agree with you too
Assembly Language Programmers are better of the best
I dont understand what is their problem with Assembly or Assembly programmers
There are a lot of ppl on internet like him.In my opinion
they are just trying to stop newests who want to learn assembly language
they fear what they do not understand
Right
they fear
Assembly language is a real programing language
programing with Assembly is not insanity
I dont think so anybody is getting insane around here
and I dont think so.... Hutch is planing to build a mentality hospital for us :bdg
This is one of my favorite replies I see on many "Mixed" language forums:
And why assembly? Why not a higher-level language?
My answer would be:
Because I CAN and YOU CAN'T :-)
:bg
> Because I CAN and YOU CAN'T :-)
Yep. :U
It's same for years
I m sure They will never give up teasing Assembly Programmers