4 ms·

> Assembler is like Shakespearean English. Author has no idea what assembler is.

by whataretensors 9y ago

anta40 9y ago
Probably he's not a programmer?
- gbacon 9y ago
  Probably. Maybe he should pick up a phone and bounce his simile off the programmers he contacted while preparing the piece.
  - cpncrunch 9y ago
    The programmers probably don't know what a simile is :)
    - carlmr 9y ago
      He just needs to tell them in his soliloquy.
coldacid 9y ago
Yeah, it's more like the individual phonemes that make up each word of every statement.
- archgoon 9y ago
  That, or instructions for controlling tongue positions and vocal chords.
  - Izkata 9y ago
    Ah, but with how English has shifted over the centuries, the necessary domain knowledge has slowly been disappearing. Shakespeare's plays now and then [0] are slightly different (and back then, dirtier) because of it. (Jump to 2:30 for an explanation and example, then at 7:58 is the dirty pun that doesn't exist in modern pronunciation.) [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s
EpicBlackCrayon 9y ago
Eh, I feel like this is a pretty apt comparison.
s73v3r_ 9y ago
I think the comparison is quite apt. Shakespearean English is an ancestor of today's English, much like assembly languages are the ancestors of today's languages. Shakespearean English is grammatically correct, much like this assembly code is, presumably, correct in doing what it needs to do. And, most pertinent, almost nobody speaks in Shakespearean English, and fewer and fewer people are comfortable working with it, much like assembly language.
- BookmarkSaver 9y ago
  I don't think it addresses one of the most important aspect of assembly, though, which is it's strict, functional/feature inferiority to modern languages. It isn't just old and forgotten, its very style and function is extremely limited in comparison. Shakespearean English is just about as functional of a language as modern English (ignoring the vocabulary for things that didn't exist back then), which can't be said about assembly.
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    "I don't think it addresses one of the most important aspect of assembly, though, which is it's strict, functional/feature inferiority to modern languages." I think that's addressed in the, "No one really uses it anymore" part. "Shakespearean English is just about as functional of a language as modern English (ignoring the vocabulary for things that didn't exist back then), which can't be said about assembly." I would disagree. Arguably, the main function, if not the only function of English, or any other human language, is to express ideas. Shakespearean English being not commonly used, and many of the colloquialisms and terms used not being in use anymore would make that function more difficult. As an example, I'd use the "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?" line. To most people, that would be Juliet asking where Romeo was, but it's not. It's her asking why Romeo had to be who he was, which was a Montague, the rival/enemy of her family.

> Assembler is like Shakespearean English. Author has no idea what assembler is.

anta40 9y ago

Probably he's not a programmer?

gbacon 9y ago
Probably. Maybe he should pick up a phone and bounce his simile off the programmers he contacted while preparing the piece.
- cpncrunch 9y ago
  The programmers probably don't know what a simile is :)
  - carlmr 9y ago
    He just needs to tell them in his soliloquy.

coldacid 9y ago

Yeah, it's more like the individual phonemes that make up each word of every statement.

archgoon 9y ago
That, or instructions for controlling tongue positions and vocal chords.
- Izkata 9y ago
  Ah, but with how English has shifted over the centuries, the necessary domain knowledge has slowly been disappearing. Shakespeare's plays now and then [0] are slightly different (and back then, dirtier) because of it. (Jump to 2:30 for an explanation and example, then at 7:58 is the dirty pun that doesn't exist in modern pronunciation.) [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s

EpicBlackCrayon 9y ago

Eh, I feel like this is a pretty apt comparison.

s73v3r_ 9y ago

I think the comparison is quite apt. Shakespearean English is an ancestor of today's English, much like assembly languages are the ancestors of today's languages. Shakespearean English is grammatically correct, much like this assembly code is, presumably, correct in doing what it needs to do. And, most pertinent, almost nobody speaks in Shakespearean English, and fewer and fewer people are comfortable working with it, much like assembly language.

BookmarkSaver 9y ago
I don't think it addresses one of the most important aspect of assembly, though, which is it's strict, functional/feature inferiority to modern languages. It isn't just old and forgotten, its very style and function is extremely limited in comparison. Shakespearean English is just about as functional of a language as modern English (ignoring the vocabulary for things that didn't exist back then), which can't be said about assembly.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  "I don't think it addresses one of the most important aspect of assembly, though, which is it's strict, functional/feature inferiority to modern languages." I think that's addressed in the, "No one really uses it anymore" part. "Shakespearean English is just about as functional of a language as modern English (ignoring the vocabulary for things that didn't exist back then), which can't be said about assembly." I would disagree. Arguably, the main function, if not the only function of English, or any other human language, is to express ideas. Shakespearean English being not commonly used, and many of the colloquialisms and terms used not being in use anymore would make that function more difficult. As an example, I'd use the "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?" line. To most people, that would be Juliet asking where Romeo was, but it's not. It's her asking why Romeo had to be who he was, which was a Montague, the rival/enemy of her family.