5 ms·

I really dislike slotting things down to a language. If you are proficient in the underlying programming concepts, the language simply does not matter with the

I really dislike slotting things down to a language. If you are proficient in the underlying programming concepts, the language simply does not matter with the right amount of motivation.

bovermyer 8y ago
So someone with a strong competency in C#, PHP, or JavaScript should be able to write Assembly? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I feel like there's a piece there that's missing.
- pavel_lishin 8y ago
  Why not? With training, of course, and time to ramp up. Assembly isn't Linear A.
  - tclancy 8y ago
    How can you be sure?
    - pavel_lishin 8y ago
      Of which part? That a programmer can learn another language, or that Linear A isn't just an obscure programming language written down with stick on clay bricks?
- raxxorrax 8y ago
  > I feel like there's a piece there that's missing. COBOL? :)
- fcbrooklyn 8y ago
  Yeah, I don't think it'd be that big of a stretch. I knew someone about 25 years ago who went from creating applications in visual basic, to working on device drivers (often involving assembly). There's a learning curve obviously, but working in assembly and working in js have plenty in common.
- roenxi 8y ago
  The biggest problem going from PHP to Assembly is going to be the jump from presumably-web-pages to presumably-hardware programming. The mechanics of the language will be a very minor speed hump compared to changing problem domains. You can signal for that with specific programming languages, but realistically a hiring manager should be most interested in finding someone who understands the core concepts of the problems at hand rather than any specific language. If solving a problem implies directly accessing a CPU register then realistically that part of the problem is going to get solved using Assembly. If twiddling bits on the CPU isn't needed then other languages will just be faster to move from nothing -> problem solved -> solution in maintenance mode so Assembly should be avoided. This decision doesn't really hinge on the programmers preferences.
- tga 8y ago
  Yes, someone with a strong competency developing software in any language should be able to learn to write Assembly/any other language. There will be a learning curve, but the ability to reason abstractly is fully transferable.
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  I'd presume that anyone with a BS in computer science should be able to write assembly for at least one RISC architecture. I'd also presume that more companies would ask them to do so than those who have legitimate business reasons to write something in assembly. We are long past the age of resource-constrained architecture hacks. The closest most people should be getting to metal is ANSI/ISO C, and the others are all writing compilers or doing extreme optimization stunts. Can I write in assembly? Yes. Should I write in assembly? Hell no. Those companies that still require COBOL/mainframe programmers have had literally decades to watch the center of mass of the software industry move away from that, and then still make a conscious decision to pursue a dead-end path to obsolescence.
vertex-four 8y ago
The missing link here is that COBOL is being used as shorthand for experience with mainframe programming, which of course you can’t really get unless you’ve been employed programming mainframes before. Anyone complaining about a lack of COBOL programmers is essentially complaining that nobody else is picking up on the training costs for their non-standard, incredibly expensive infrastructure, and that they don’t want to train people themselves.

I really dislike slotting things down to a language. If you are proficient in the underlying programming concepts, the language simply does not matter with the right amount of motivation.

bovermyer 8y ago

So someone with a strong competency in C#, PHP, or JavaScript should be able to write Assembly? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I feel like there's a piece there that's missing.

pavel_lishin 8y ago
Why not? With training, of course, and time to ramp up. Assembly isn't Linear A.
- tclancy 8y ago
  How can you be sure?
  - pavel_lishin 8y ago
    Of which part? That a programmer can learn another language, or that Linear A isn't just an obscure programming language written down with stick on clay bricks?
raxxorrax 8y ago
> I feel like there's a piece there that's missing. COBOL? :)
fcbrooklyn 8y ago
Yeah, I don't think it'd be that big of a stretch. I knew someone about 25 years ago who went from creating applications in visual basic, to working on device drivers (often involving assembly). There's a learning curve obviously, but working in assembly and working in js have plenty in common.
roenxi 8y ago
The biggest problem going from PHP to Assembly is going to be the jump from presumably-web-pages to presumably-hardware programming. The mechanics of the language will be a very minor speed hump compared to changing problem domains. You can signal for that with specific programming languages, but realistically a hiring manager should be most interested in finding someone who understands the core concepts of the problems at hand rather than any specific language. If solving a problem implies directly accessing a CPU register then realistically that part of the problem is going to get solved using Assembly. If twiddling bits on the CPU isn't needed then other languages will just be faster to move from nothing -> problem solved -> solution in maintenance mode so Assembly should be avoided. This decision doesn't really hinge on the programmers preferences.
tga 8y ago
Yes, someone with a strong competency developing software in any language should be able to learn to write Assembly/any other language. There will be a learning curve, but the ability to reason abstractly is fully transferable.
logfromblammo 8y ago
I'd presume that anyone with a BS in computer science should be able to write assembly for at least one RISC architecture. I'd also presume that more companies would ask them to do so than those who have legitimate business reasons to write something in assembly. We are long past the age of resource-constrained architecture hacks. The closest most people should be getting to metal is ANSI/ISO C, and the others are all writing compilers or doing extreme optimization stunts. Can I write in assembly? Yes. Should I write in assembly? Hell no. Those companies that still require COBOL/mainframe programmers have had literally decades to watch the center of mass of the software industry move away from that, and then still make a conscious decision to pursue a dead-end path to obsolescence.

vertex-four 8y ago

The missing link here is that COBOL is being used as shorthand for experience with mainframe programming, which of course you can’t really get unless you’ve been employed programming mainframes before. Anyone complaining about a lack of COBOL programmers is essentially complaining that nobody else is picking up on the training costs for their non-standard, incredibly expensive infrastructure, and that they don’t want to train people themselves.