Anyone like programming in Assembly?

Post Reply New Topic

So far, its been an odd alternative to my C++ programming experiences. Definitely cool to have so much power, but the debugging drives me insane. I heard its always like that; the debugging is always the major hurdle.

yep,
cut my teeth on z80 machine code.

an assembler came much later.

I used to use it for hacking windows pgms with a disassembler like WDASM32.

Cool You guys sounds old school.

I like assembly. Can you get a job just doing that? Or do most companies use C or Java now? Doing that from home would be cool but there seems to be plenty of competition. Have you guys seen the site getacoder.com?

IBM S/360 machine code, probably was my first.

Motorola 6880 processor man now that was fun

Thats the same processor in the NES.[Nintendo Entertainment System.]

Nope. 6502. They were fun too, but not Motorola. I preferred the Z80.

The Motorola 68008 was nicer, though, entering the 8/16/32 bit game.

It is fun, but less productive.

I typically used NASM for assembly.

A derivative of the Z80 is in the gameboy (the original)

Oh come on guys part of the fun is debuging,
you end up obsessing over the damn bug then once you got it fixed your happy.

Mostly x86 assembly here, with a large smattering of PIC assembly (which I really do adore...)

You can get a job doing x86 assembly if you work where I work...or our competitor company =) Though, we do do a good bit of C code, now that I think of it...

use to learn assembler language at university to bad it was so confusing saw 1010101010 at the end of the day

Yes, assembly is great fun. You have full control. You don't have to worry what someone else's library is really doing. It requires more forethought, and tighter coding. The only issue, is it take so long to actually program anything.

I have done assembly on:

- x86 (learned assembly on this one)
- Rx000
- PIC16F84, PIC16F877
- 68k
- ADSP21161N

To overcome the aforementioned issue, the usual method is to integrate your code in C and assembly. Don't use C++, name mangling makes function calls all but impossible.

It has been some time since I have done assembly coding. However, I remember when I was in high school. My uncle had a previous used computer business that had gone under. I had a barn full of original PC and clones to work with (remember the Olivetti?). As they were essentially paperweights, I would write assembly codes that would implode the monitors, blow tracks off the motherboard, &c. It was rather amusing seeing just how much theses machines would take.

Just to reassure people, the above was naturally only in your dreams.

I have come across only one machine that was designed (on purpose) in a way that allowed the machine instructions to destroy it. That was a very early graphics processing machine, that used multiple parallel processing elements connected via a rat's-nest of buses. You could program it to connect outputs to outputs, which is generally speaking, always a bad idea. Their assembler tried hard to stop you coding suicidal instructions.