Server Help

[nintendo64]

Good read for programmers,

http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2004/05/06/writegreatcode.html

I see your point, Mr Ekted, i do beleive the internals should be the main focus, even thought the author of this article shows learning assembly is a good way for gaining this knowledge. I admit, he was advertising assembly , he went a little overboard.

-nintendo64

[Mr Ekted]

Nice. And agreed. L1K

It's not even the point to learn ASM per se, just to understand the kinds of things that happen on the inside. Most programs treat the computer like a black box, and they end up writing slow bloated crap like ICQ, Internet Explorer, WinAmp, Windows Media Player, etc.
_________________
4,691 irradiated haggis!

[Qndre]

You can write everything in ASM, you can also write in other languages. (Because every high-language becomes ASM after compilation!) But in ASM you can do more. And it's very useful for reverse-engineering. But it's hard to learn.

[Mine GO BOOM]

[Cyan~Fire]

Read the article before you comment, Qndre.

I think telling all modern-day programmers to learn ASM is a little over-the-top, since many would not do it. I think the simplest way to improve code is just to know smaller code is smaller compiled code (usually), and also take into consideration what external methods they are using to accomplish their goals. If everyone wrote windows apps with the Windows API instead of the bloated MFC, programs would shave off huge chunks of their run-time bulk.
_________________
This help is informational only. No representation is made or warranty given as to its content. User assumes all risk of use. Cyan~Fire assumes no responsibility for any loss or delay resulting from such use.
Wise men STILL seek Him.

[NightHawk]

I'm getting my Comp Sci degree at a University, and had to take an assembly course in my second year. I thought that this would be standard material at other institution.. am I wrong?

[Smong]

I had a look at some U's and only one said the asm was an optional module that was taken in the electronics department. My main impression was that they were focusing on AI/neural networks and consultancy ('we don't live in India so we don't have to code' was the message I got).

[Mr Ekted]

I am not saying that people should write their apps in ASM. I am saying that by learning ASM it helps you understand HOW to design and write better code in whatever language you choose -- orders of magnitude better.

[nintendo64]

For the people that are saying, "not everything should be written in assembly", they are right, but that's not what the article is saying, why don't go read it? The Article is talking about that many programmers don't know how the internals works, hence the bloatware applications.

Assembly is a just a good way to learn how the computer treats your variables (on the stack or on the heap), etc.. the internals.

Main point of the Article

[Helicon]

the difference here is between a designer and a computer scientist. This is not to say that great coders can't benefit, they certainly will. However, many of the low-level protocols and high-efficiency environments are merely implemented by coders, while the actual theory behind them is implemented by true nuts and bolts computer scientists.

try to look at it this way, in a game like Quake or Unreal, the engine itself is hot-wired for speed speed speed. I would venture to say that many of algorithms in either engine bank on ASM code or snippets for fast and efficient access to system resources. I haven't seen said code, of course, but it seems only logical given the tremendous performance achieved.
Even less impressive apps benefit from assembly procedures, especially in processing large data structures ie image editing, sound, and scientific data processing.

in approaching assembly, i never set out to actively code in assembly, as that is a step into an expertise which i share no stake in. I did, however, take the time to learn how a program is written in ASM and try to comprehend the small ASM parts that make up the implementation of higher-level processes (ie other language constructs). in other words, mentally comprehending, step by step, the transfer from C to ASM in terms of what the programmer indicated and what was accomplished.

i suppose an auto mechanic analogy would be good in this case. A good mechanic can fix a belt or true an axle or fix even trivial engine problems, yet they can do nothing immediate about malfunctions in the high precision machined parts within the engine. the good ones know what goes on inside and how to prevent wear, tear, and get the highest performance, but they don't necessarily carry qualifications for developing such parts.

becoming familiar with assembly language shares a common purpose. you will understand better how to transfer ideas from your mental process into computer instructions, even if that process does not take place in ASM, but in another language...

java programmers needn't bother
_________________
Signatures just seem so quaint.

[Helicon]

[Mr Ekted]

I was replying to Qndre mostly. I should have quoted him.

[Mr Ekted]

Code: Show/Hide int i; char buffer[256]; // code that sets buffer here for (i = 0; i < strlen(buffer); i++)    if (buffer[i] == ' ')       buffer[i] = '_';

What's wrong with this?

1. strlen() is called every loop. This will easily make this loop 10x slower, maybe more.

2. Indexing is expensive, even for char arrays. If you are sequentially walking an array, use a pointer.

Code: Show/Hide char *p; char ch; char buffer[256]; // code that sets buffer here p = buffer; while (ch = *p)    {    if (ch == ' ')       *p = '_';    p++;    }

This is a tiny example. You can't fix most poorly written apps by tweaking 10 lines of code at a time. They have inefficiencies in design (functional, data structures, etc).

[Mine GO BOOM]

[Mr Ekted]

Only because strlen() can be an "intrinsic" function. If it was an arbitrary function, the compiler cannot make the assumption that it only needs to call it once. Agreed otherwise.

[Cyan~Fire]

Code: Show/Hide char *p; char ch; char buffer[256]; // code that sets buffer here p = buffer; while (ch = *p)    {    if (ch == ' ')       *p = '_';    p++;    }

Can't you just do

Code: Show/Hide while (*p) {    if (*p == ' ')       *p = '_'; }

Maybe I'm just overlooking something obvious.

[SuSE]

<measures dick>

[Dustpuppy]

[-Smong-]

I think char ch will probably be a register so the if() is faster. Although it's not the sort of think I would think up myself.

[Mr Ekted]

I prefer to be explicit. If you do:

Code: Show/Hide while (*p)    {    if (*p == ' ')       *p = '_';    p++;    }

you are dereferencing p twice (testing *p). Granted the optimizer should handle it, but who knows.

[Grav(FU OL)]

I totaly agree, understanding the very basic principals is the most important thing.
Take math for example, sin, cosin, tangent, log, etc., today's kids - they just push buttons, they rarely understand what exactly is going on there.
Tell them to do manual calculations for a square root of 1, they won't know how to, they'll ask for a computer.
I always argued against the education system in that fashion, being able to know how to operate a hand held computer is all nice and dandy and sure, it makes calculations easier and faster, but it also dulls the brain, you need to know for yourself and understand what exactly is happening there.

Take McGuyver for an example, sure most of the time it was a bit over the top and more lcuky than one should and would be, but still, it pushed a strong message of relaying upon intelligence, knowledge, understanding, brain power instead of brawn power.


P.S.

Efficient Coding: http://www.theprodukkt.com/


P.P.S:
DIE SCUM!

[Grav(FU OL)]

Also for example, there was back then BATTLETECH 3025.
The entire MMOFPS ran on 36MBs total!!!
I have no idea how they compressed shit so tight and so forth, but boy, they did it.

[Grav(FU OL)]

In addition: assembly rox

[Cyan~Fire]

[Mr Ekted]