•
•
•
•
What is DaniWeb IT Discussion Community?
You're currently browsing the Assembly section within the Software Development category of DaniWeb, a massive community of 391,908 software developers, web developers, Internet marketers, and tech gurus who are all enthusiastic about making contacts, networking, and learning from each other. In fact, there are 3,624 IT professionals currently interacting right now! Registration is free, only takes a minute and lets you enjoy all of the interactive features of the site.
Please support our Assembly advertiser:
Views: 6348 | Replies: 34
 |
•
•
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 99
Reputation: 
Rep Power: 2
Solved Threads: 1
Junior Poster in Training
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by jbennet 
have u guys tried menuetn os?
a whole os in assembly. its got a GUI and is under 5 meg
No, but then there are more OS's out there than you can shake a stick at.
•
•
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 49
Reputation:
Rep Power: 2
Solved Threads: 0
Light Poster
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by mathematician
Anybody who writes a memory resident debugger, which can randomly interrupt the execution of a program at any point, will soon discover that the average app spends about 90% of its time executing operating system code. Therefore it can be as fast as the OS, and no faster.
Its a very bold (and 100% wrong) assumption that all computer systems have an OS or one that they're CPU bound upon.
You seem to be a very GUI/desktop centric person. I assure you, there's a whole world out there you've never seen.
You seem to hold the guts of an OS as some sort of impenetrable black box who's will we a simply subject to. Having spect a significant portion of my career in the guts of OS's and drivers, I can state this is not the case, and the cure for performance issues in OS's is often assembler code. In fact the guts of the OS/2 kernel were virtually all assembler with few exceptions (HPFS was mostly C). Run OS/2 on anything and compare it to Windows or Linux in terms of speed and responsivness. There is no comparason. All that assembler code beats the crap out of the C code systems.
Last edited by Purple Avenger : Feb 1st, 2007 at 7:34 pm.
•
•
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 49
Reputation:
Rep Power: 2
Solved Threads: 0
Light Poster
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by jbennet
have u guys tried menuetn os?
a whole os in assembly. its got a GUI and is under 5 meg
OS/2 1.3 would run on a machine with well under 3M of memory, and the whole system shipped on about 8 or 9 1.44M diskettes (including display/printer drivers).
•
•
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 260
Reputation:
Rep Power: 2
Solved Threads: 16
Posting Whiz in Training
Electronic Engineers use Assembly to program microcontrollers, used in just about everything like cars, microwaves, washing machines etc.
•
•
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15
Reputation:
Rep Power: 2
Solved Threads: 0
Newbie Poster
•
•
•
•
Anybody who writes a memory resident debugger, which can randomly interrupt the execution of a program at any point, will soon discover that the average app spends about 90% of its time executing operating system code. Therefore it can be as fast as the OS, and no faster.
My conclusion: Assembly language can produce by far the fastest and smallest binaries, it is as easy (or difficult) as any other programming language. One can be AT LEAST as productive as can be with any other language because he/she will not be fighting with the HLL's limitations.
Antonis
•
•
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 99
Reputation:
Rep Power: 2
Solved Threads: 1
Junior Poster in Training
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by Purple Avenger
Its a very bold (and 100% wrong) assumption that all computer systems have an OS or one that they're CPU bound upon.
You seem to be a very GUI/desktop centric person. I assure you, there's a whole world out there you've never seen.
You seem to hold the guts of an OS as some sort of impenetrable black box who's will we a simply subject to. Having spect a significant portion of my career in the guts of OS's and drivers, I can state this is not the case, and the cure for performance issues in OS's is often assembler code. In fact the guts of the OS/2 kernel were virtually all assembler with few exceptions (HPFS was mostly C). Run OS/2 on anything and compare it to Windows or Linux in terms of speed and responsivness. There is no comparason. All that assembler code beats the crap out of the C code systems.
Most people aren't involved in writing operating systems - they are involved in writing apps. As it happens, the operating system I was referring to, with apps spending 90% of their time inside it, wasn't a GUI system.
Personally, I hadn't noticed Windows graphics being particularly slow; we are no longer in the age of 4.77MHz PC's, where every last clock cycle counted.
•
•
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 49
Reputation:
Rep Power: 2
Solved Threads: 0
Light Poster
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by mathematician
we are no longer in the age of 4.77MHz PC's, where every last clock cycle counted.
That's why I'm reading Vista's hardware requirements are massive right?
I have more respect for your time than you do.
Last edited by Purple Avenger : Feb 2nd, 2007 at 6:50 pm.
•
•
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: near St Louis, Missouri, USA
Posts: 10,554
Reputation: 
Rep Power: 36
Solved Threads: 860
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by akyprian
And YOUR conclusion is: no matter what language you use or what code you write, final binaries will have the same speed ...
Not so -- bad compilers or unoptimized code will produce slower binaries. Different compilers will produce very different binaries (*.exe) even with the same source code. That is one of the bench mark test that many companies perform on compilers.
•
•
•
•
My conclusion: Assembly language can produce by far the fastest and smallest binaries
Yes it could, but whether it does not not is highly dependent on the skills of the programmer.
•
•
•
•
One can be AT LEAST as productive as can be with any other language because he/she will not be fighting with the HLL's limitations.
Totally agree with that statement. Assembly language is the LEAST productive of all languages (except machine language of course). Which is why no one writes anything but trivial programs in assembly language. Assembly is nice to know for all programmers, but not very useful for anyone other than those who design write compilers or operating systems.
I think it's about time we voted for senators with breasts. After all, we've been voting for boobs long enough. ~Clarie Sargent, Arizona senatorial candidate
Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. ~Plato
Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. ~Plato
•
•
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 49
Reputation:
Rep Power: 2
Solved Threads: 0
Light Poster
•
•
•
•
Originally Posted by Ancient Dragon
why no one writes anything but trivial programs in assembly language.
I assure you the OS/2 kernel, KBD, MOU, VIO, and base drivers code was non-trivial. It was all done in assembler.
In the 1.X and GA 2.0 version the PM graphics engine was assembler as well. The VGA and 8514 drivers was all assembler and large chunks of the XGA driver were assembler.
Gibson claims everything he does is assembler. don't know if that's true or not, but its what he claims.
I've got a 100,000 LOC test suite for the DOS Int 21 API that's done all in assembler.
•
•
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15
Reputation:
Rep Power: 2
Solved Threads: 0
Newbie Poster
•
•
•
•
Not so -- bad compilers or unoptimized code will produce slower binaries. Different compilers will produce very different binaries (*.exe) even with the same source code. That is one of the bench mark test that many companies perform on compilers.
•
•
•
•
Yes it could, but whether it does not not is highly dependent on the skills of the programmer.
•
•
•
•
Assembly language is the LEAST productive of all languages
If one writes 'real' applications and not toys is sure that it is the other way round. I am wondering, what kind of applications we are talking about.
•
•
•
•
not very useful for anyone other than those who design write compilers or operating systems
I am really wondering why one spends his time in an Assembly forum trying to persuade people that they are not productive! I hope it doesn't sound like and ad, my site (and many others) is a proof of what I am saying.
Antonis
|
•
•
•
•
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DaniWeb Assembly Marketplace
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
- Questions about assembly and boolean algebra (Assembly)
- Assembly Programming Question (Assembly)
- How can i use inline assembly in VC++ editor (C++)
- Mips Assembly porting from C (Assembly)
- machine/assembly language, syntax error (C++)
- Using x86 Assembly Language with Microsoft Visual C++ (C++)
Other Threads in the Assembly Forum
- Previous Thread: 8 Queens Problem!?
- Next Thread: drag & drop
