2 ms·
Of course, I did not say assembly is just like Lisp in every respect. But as long as we're picking nits -- It is of course completely possible to create execu
by mturmon 14y ago
Of course, I did not say assembly is just like Lisp in every respect.
But as long as we're picking nits --
It is of course completely possible to create executable code during runtime, using assembler. Often not advisable. (Recall the punch line of: http://www.cs.utah.edu/~elb/folklore/mel.html http://www.cs.utah.edu/~elb/folklore/mel.html)
- alberich 14y agoReading the story on the link made me feel envy :) I admire those who really understand how it all works under the hoods. Although I tried to learn assembly on my own a long time ago, I never went much further than reading some imput and printing it to the screen. It seems it is a very specialized knowledge nowdays.
- rayiner 14y agoThe best way to learn assembler is by writing an assembler, which you can do in pretty much any language you're comfortable with (https://github.com/rayiner/amd64-asm https://github.com/rayiner/amd64-asm) with just a manual (http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/24594_APM_v3.pdf http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/24594_APM_v3.pd...) . I think x86 is really not a bad pedagogical tool. For all the crap it gets, it's really a fairly clean architecture. And while we think of 32-bit and 64-bit extensions as having "piled on cruft" what's really happened is that they have made the architecture conceptually cleaner and more orthogonal.