4 ms·

I mean, it's always useful to know what's happening under the hood, but it's not always realistic to expect that to happen. I don't think the average C programm

I mean, it's always useful to know what's happening under the hood, but it's not always realistic to expect that to happen. I don't think the average C programmer need to know assembly any more than the average Ruby programmer needs to know C. I disagree. Given that C exposes you to some hardware details that are abstracted when developing in some higher level language such as Ruby, for instance having to deal with overflow on signed/unsigned types and register variables (I know that compilers will mostly ignore that, but it's still a language feature). The average Ruby programmer, on it's turn, can perfectly live without knowing C programming. A more accurate analogy would be to a Ruby programmer to know about the language implementation being using (MRI, JRuby, Rubinius, etc.)

prophetjohn 14y ago
Signed vs. unsigned data types isn't an artifact of assembly language. It's more so one of digital data representation. I think that knowledge is just as useful to a C programmer as a Ruby programmer. Fire up irb and type 0.1 + 0.2, for instance. You covered what I would have said about the register keyword, but you're right, it's essentially impossible to understand that language "feature" without having a basic understanding of the CPU.
- wreckimnaked 14y ago
  Indeed. My main point was that programming C requires more knowledge about the "layers" underneath its execution than higher level languages such as Ruby.