6 ms·

Why is this news -- or even interesting? Perhaps assembly feels exotic to a dilettante, but to anyone with a computer science degree this was simply a part (an

Why is this news -- or even interesting? Perhaps assembly feels exotic to a dilettante, but to anyone with a computer science degree this was simply a part (and an early and basic part) of their education...

losethos 16y ago
You seem unusually bitter. Are you hiding something. To any programmer, asm is a curiosity. I'm not saying it's useful, but why the strong hate. You have an agenda, don't you. I feel like I'm fighting the forces of darkness. Evil people. You sound like an Indian.
sciolizer 16y ago
Computer science curriculums vary wildly. And just because you were taught assembly and how a cpu works, doesn't mean you learned how to do it on unix or even x86. (My college taught with the spim mips emulator. I also taught myself dos assembly when I was younger, but this is the first time I've seen unix assembly.)
- Locke1689 16y ago
  Nah, what you're seeing here is relatively poor, old, IA32, AT&T-style (which means GCC targeted), Linux-targeted assembly code. This is not the article I would use to learn about Linux, operating systems, or assembly (although it's more accurate to say you learn "an ISA" instead of "assembly").
  - recoil 16y ago
    The article uses Nasm not GCC (or rather, not Gas - though Gas supports Intel syntax too now, afaik), and is definitely using Intel syntax. Note for instance the unintuitive order of source and destination in the MOV calls and the lack of delimiters on the operands, amongst other things. [edit: clarification]
    - barrkel 16y ago
      I strongly object to your characterization; it's highly dependent on what you're familiar with. MOV calls map intuitively to assignment, and with assignment, the LHS is the destination and the RHS is the value. And Intel syntax uses type inference to deduce the width of operands, and only requires DWORD PTR / WORD PTR / BYTE PTR etc. to disambiguate when it's necessary. (I have a very strong personal preference for the Intel syntax.)
      - recoil 16y ago
        I prefer Intel syntax too, in every other respect other than order of operands. That's really just because it differs from the only other assembly language I've ever used (68k). I still think it's unintuitive, but it's no worse than, say, the order of arguments to the Unix 'ln' command. You get used to it. The comment about the lack of delimiters was not a value judgement; I was just pointing out one of the obvious signs that the article wasn't using AT&T syntax. I think that having to stick $ on immediate operands is particularly annoying, for instance.
        mgedmin 16y ago
        And the trick to getting used to things is finding the right mnemonic. I used to get tripped up by 'ln -s' all the time, until I realized that if I thought about 'cp src dst' but with 'cp' replaced 'cp' with 'ln -s' it suddenly made sense. Likewise Intel assembly's mov statement and its similarity with assignment statements that barrkel mentioned. Whether something seems intuitive or not depends on the analogy you prefer, or even your choice of words. E.g. look at 2D coordinates for a terminal character cell: if you think of them in terms of (x, y), you will find that order intuitive, but if you think (row, col), you'll find the opposite order intuitive.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
gojomo 16y ago
Did you find assembly interesting the first time you encountered it? Some people here are still there. A CS degree is not yet a prerequisite for HN user registration!
- catshirt 16y ago
  true- but this type of content does not (at least in my experience) lend itself well to sharing discovery. it (at least in my experience) comes with the territory of interest. i guess more remarkably, there is no timeliness to this article.

losethos 16y ago

You seem unusually bitter. Are you hiding something. To any programmer, asm is a curiosity. I'm not saying it's useful, but why the strong hate. You have an agenda, don't you. I feel like I'm fighting the forces of darkness. Evil people. You sound like an Indian.

sciolizer 16y ago

Computer science curriculums vary wildly. And just because you were taught assembly and how a cpu works, doesn't mean you learned how to do it on unix or even x86. (My college taught with the spim mips emulator. I also taught myself dos assembly when I was younger, but this is the first time I've seen unix assembly.)

Locke1689 16y ago
Nah, what you're seeing here is relatively poor, old, IA32, AT&T-style (which means GCC targeted), Linux-targeted assembly code. This is not the article I would use to learn about Linux, operating systems, or assembly (although it's more accurate to say you learn "an ISA" instead of "assembly").
- recoil 16y ago
  The article uses Nasm not GCC (or rather, not Gas - though Gas supports Intel syntax too now, afaik), and is definitely using Intel syntax. Note for instance the unintuitive order of source and destination in the MOV calls and the lack of delimiters on the operands, amongst other things. [edit: clarification]
  - barrkel 16y ago
    I strongly object to your characterization; it's highly dependent on what you're familiar with. MOV calls map intuitively to assignment, and with assignment, the LHS is the destination and the RHS is the value. And Intel syntax uses type inference to deduce the width of operands, and only requires DWORD PTR / WORD PTR / BYTE PTR etc. to disambiguate when it's necessary. (I have a very strong personal preference for the Intel syntax.)
    - recoil 16y ago
      I prefer Intel syntax too, in every other respect other than order of operands. That's really just because it differs from the only other assembly language I've ever used (68k). I still think it's unintuitive, but it's no worse than, say, the order of arguments to the Unix 'ln' command. You get used to it. The comment about the lack of delimiters was not a value judgement; I was just pointing out one of the obvious signs that the article wasn't using AT&T syntax. I think that having to stick $ on immediate operands is particularly annoying, for instance.
      - mgedmin 16y ago
        And the trick to getting used to things is finding the right mnemonic. I used to get tripped up by 'ln -s' all the time, until I realized that if I thought about 'cp src dst' but with 'cp' replaced 'cp' with 'ln -s' it suddenly made sense. Likewise Intel assembly's mov statement and its similarity with assignment statements that barrkel mentioned. Whether something seems intuitive or not depends on the analogy you prefer, or even your choice of words. E.g. look at 2D coordinates for a terminal character cell: if you think of them in terms of (x, y), you will find that order intuitive, but if you think (row, col), you'll find the opposite order intuitive.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

gojomo 16y ago

Did you find assembly interesting the first time you encountered it? Some people here are still there. A CS degree is not yet a prerequisite for HN user registration!

catshirt 16y ago
true- but this type of content does not (at least in my experience) lend itself well to sharing discovery. it (at least in my experience) comes with the territory of interest. i guess more remarkably, there is no timeliness to this article.