5 ms·

> Recently, I had to learn C++17 through 20. At the same time I was learning x86 assembly, and x86 assembly was far, far easier. Downright simple and straightfo

> Recently, I had to learn C++17 through 20. At the same time I was learning x86 assembly, and x86 assembly was far, far easier. Downright simple and straightforward in comparison. Somewhere along the lines of the development of high-level languages, "tedious and semi-unmanageable" got replaced with "difficult". Assembler isn't difficult, nor is it meant to be; any emulator or embedded developer could tell you this. Assembler just has few tools to ease development/code structuring and gets very flat and overwhelming in large code-bases; these are the problems C/C++, Pascal, Algol, etc were designed to solve.

LeFantome 3y ago
We are probably agreeing but Pascal at least was explicitly designed to allow and to teach “structured” programming. In some ways, it is designed to limit your options. Their is no denying though that it makes code easier to read and also makes intent much clearer. This in turn makes not just creating but of course maintaining and extending large code based much easier. In terms of complexity, it depends on how you measure. In assembler, it does not take long to learn how to compare and jump. That gives you the power of while, do/while, for, if/then, and of course “goto” ( which your “more advanced” language may lack ). I would argue though that it is easier to understand the syntax of if / else than the equivalent assembler. Again, if not easier to write, it is at least more obvious when reading ( for less experienced eyes ).
- deaddodo 3y ago
  Well, we're not disagreeing. Your first paragraph is basically just a summation of my point while the second paragraph reiterates it. Assembler is not necessarily difficult, it's tedious; which includes parsing and keeping it in mind. Most modern assemblers offer some sort of Macro system to even help with some of the aforementioned niggles.
RagnarD 3y ago
Individual assembly instructions are basically trivial to grasp (the actual syntax is probably the hardest part.) The challenge is synthesizing larger, useful programs from the little tidbits of data manipulation. It's a great exercise in bottom-up hierarchical integration. As deaddodo notes, this is why higher level languages were developed, to raise conscious focus away from having to use such tiny primitives.

LeFantome 3y ago

We are probably agreeing but Pascal at least was explicitly designed to allow and to teach “structured” programming. In some ways, it is designed to limit your options. Their is no denying though that it makes code easier to read and also makes intent much clearer. This in turn makes not just creating but of course maintaining and extending large code based much easier. In terms of complexity, it depends on how you measure. In assembler, it does not take long to learn how to compare and jump. That gives you the power of while, do/while, for, if/then, and of course “goto” ( which your “more advanced” language may lack ). I would argue though that it is easier to understand the syntax of if / else than the equivalent assembler. Again, if not easier to write, it is at least more obvious when reading ( for less experienced eyes ).

deaddodo 3y ago
Well, we're not disagreeing. Your first paragraph is basically just a summation of my point while the second paragraph reiterates it. Assembler is not necessarily difficult, it's tedious; which includes parsing and keeping it in mind. Most modern assemblers offer some sort of Macro system to even help with some of the aforementioned niggles.

RagnarD 3y ago

Individual assembly instructions are basically trivial to grasp (the actual syntax is probably the hardest part.) The challenge is synthesizing larger, useful programs from the little tidbits of data manipulation. It's a great exercise in bottom-up hierarchical integration. As deaddodo notes, this is why higher level languages were developed, to raise conscious focus away from having to use such tiny primitives.