4 ms·
OK sure, but back when old heads were complaining about the kids not knowing assembly, those same kids knew C or Fortran or something. In 2026, if you call you
by jkubicek 6mo ago
OK sure, but back when old heads were complaining about the kids not knowing assembly, those same kids knew C or Fortran or something.
In 2026, if you call yourself a developer and can't solve FizzBuzz without help, it's hard to argue that you know anything useful at all.
- brookst 6mo agoDo modern languages and compilers count as “help”? Because I could probably do fizzbuzz in x86 assembly, but it would take a while to page that back in, and I suspect most people who call themselves developers today simply could not do it without help.
- thaumasiotes 6mo ago> I could probably do fizzbuzz in x86 assembly How? Fizzbuzz requires you to produce output; that's not functionality that CPU instructions provide. You can call into existing functionality that handles it for you, but at that point what are you objecting to about the 'modern language'?
- rightbyte 6mo agoYou'd just call printf from assembly by knowing the ABI by heart.
- brookst 6mo agoWell I could certainly assemble the string buffer. And if I can run dosbox, I can output to the screen buffer at 0xB800. I’m not objecting to modern languages, I’m just saying that using them fails the “can write fizzbuzz with no help” test to only a slightly lesser degree than using AI tools. They’re a complex compile- and runtime environment that most developers don’t truly understand.