4 ms·
It would end up like Steve Yegge's tale of Geoworks: "OK: I went to the University of Washington and [then] I got hired by this company called Geoworks, doing
by kryptiskt 3y ago
It would end up like Steve Yegge's tale of Geoworks:
"OK: I went to the University of Washington and [then] I got hired by this company called Geoworks, doing assembly-language programming, and I did it for five years. To us, the Geoworkers, we wrote a whole operating system, the libraries, drivers, apps, you know: a desktop operating system in assembly. 8086 assembly! It wasn't even good assembly! We had four registers! [Plus the] si [register] if you counted, you know, if you counted 386, right? It was horrible.
I mean, actually we kind of liked it. It was Object-Oriented Assembly. It's amazing what you can talk yourself into liking, which is the real irony of all this. And to us, C++ was the ultimate in Roman decadence. I mean, it was equivalent to going and vomiting so you could eat more. They had IF! We had jump CX zero! Right? They had "Objects". Well we did too, but I mean they had syntax for it, right? I mean it was all just such weeniness. And we knew that we could outperform any compiler out there because at the time, we could!
So what happened? Well, they went bankrupt. Why? Now I'm probably disagreeing – I know for a fact that I'm disagreeing with every Geoworker out there. I'm the only one that holds this belief. But it's because we wrote fifteen million lines of 8086 assembly language. We had really good tools, world class tools: trust me, you need 'em. But at some point, man...
The problem is, picture an ant walking across your garage floor, trying to make a straight line of it. It ain't gonna make a straight line. And you know this because you have perspective. You can see the ant walking around, going hee hee hee, look at him locally optimize for that rock, and now he's going off this way, right?
This is what we were, when we were writing this giant assembly-language system. Because what happened was, Microsoft eventually released a platform for mobile devices that was much faster than ours. OK? And I started going in with my debugger, going, what? What is up with this? This rendering is just really slow, it's like sluggish, you know. And I went in and found out that some title bar was getting rendered 140 times every time you refreshed the screen. It wasn't just the title bar. Everything was getting called multiple times.
Because we couldn't see how the system worked anymore!
Small systems are not only easier to optimize, they're possible to optimize. And I mean globally optimize."
http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/05/dynamic-languages-strike-back.html http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/05/dynamic-languages-st...
- sillysaurusx 3y agoInterestingly, AI might change this. Not that it would be a good idea to write everything in assembly, but at least it would be possible now. Some wonderful systems were written in assembly. Donkey Kong comes to mind.
- lmm 3y ago> Interestingly, AI might change this. Not that it would be a good idea to write everything in assembly, but at least it would be possible now. More likely to be the opposite IMO. AI could make the Sufficiently Smart Compiler a reality; maybe autovectorization will finally work and you could write FizzBuzz in Python and it would perform like this.
- _dain_ 3y ago>Object-Oriented Assembly what in the god damn
- nickelpro 3y agovtables aren't limited to any particular language That you have some set of macros that work on common data structures and use a function pointer lookup to dispatch some behavior isn't insane. I mean, if your macros are that advanced why not use a real programming language, but shit got weird in the 80s and early 90s.
- jerf 3y agoParadigms are not a characteristic of programming languages, they are a characteristic of programs. Now, obviously, programming languages encourage and afford the use of certain paradigms. But that's all they do. A program is not object oriented because it's written in C++. It is object oriented because it is written in terms of objects, regardless of what the underlying language may support or encourage. Assembly, being the base language of the CPU, can be written in any paradigm any other language might permit, since all other programming language paradigms are obtained as limitations on the underlying assembler that may be generated. You can always just apply those limitations manually to get an object oriented program, or a logic programming program, or a functional programming. It just might be very costly and difficult.