The following was posted on the Slashdot website about an hour ago. The comments to the post are rather interesting. :tongue: It's good to see assembly programming getting some public recognition.

"A new book was just released which is based on a new concept - teaching computer science through assembly language (Linux x86 assembly language, to be exact). This book teaches how the machine itself operates, rather than just the language. I've found that the key difference between mediocre and excellent programmers is whether or not they know assembly language. Those that do tend to understand computers themselves at a much deeper level. Although unheard of today, this concept isn't really all that new -- there used to not be much choice in years past. Apple computers came with only BASIC and assembly language, and there were books available on assembly language for kids. This is why the old-timers are often viewed as 'wizards': they had to know assembly language programming. Perhaps this current obsession with learning using 'easy' languages is the wrong way to do things. High-level languages are great, but learning them will never teach you about computers. Perhaps it's time that computer science curriculums start teaching assembly language first."
Posted on 2004-02-05 19:21:14 by Masmer
Nice, I think is used gas sintaxis, but at the end is not so dificult to follow, is very easy..., also i think you can find the book here...

By the way, there are some very good book that show asm in linux, i have one that show basic circuits of memory and such things... the link was provided by a friend, also I dont manage to donwload (ok I donwload it, but cant open it) this book, aparently the files are corrupt???, I miss send a email to "" in netherland??? for ask about this eventuality... if you manage to download it, and open it, please say me...

Have a nice day or night.
Posted on 2004-02-05 22:51:37 by rea

old timers

... hmmph.
Posted on 2004-02-06 08:29:21 by Homer
I hope that the point is also clear that excellent programmers know MORE than assembly language.

Perhaps it's time that computer science curriculums start teaching assembly language first.

At my uni, assembly language/computer organization was a first-year compulsory course (used to be with PDP-11 asm, later with PowerPC asm). I thought that was pretty common at universities anyway.
Posted on 2004-02-06 09:00:52 by Henk-Jan
Its a pitty that Uni's don't have more money...
If they could get a few FPGAs, then the hardware course & comp sci/software eng courses could get together and do some really cool stuff. Both sides would learn a lot, try getting a hardware guy to explain something and they draw boxes and tells you it happens on the second falling clock edge and think you'll know what that means. And of course the software people must at try and understand how real hardware works.
Unfortunately time, money and ability would probably make that unlikely to ever happen.

Posted on 2004-02-06 17:42:04 by Mirno
What do you expect? After the internet bubble, the demand for HLL's grew substantially and to meet the demand I guess Universities had to start cutting out some stuff. After the burst of this bubble, now the stuff is being slowly reintroduced
Posted on 2004-02-06 21:45:48 by x86asm
had to start cutting out some stuff
That is bad, for example, the U where I go, have divided the carrera time a go in two speciallizations, one for software and one for hardware.. or more electronics, a teacher that have some years in that school say that the director at that time say, that they need get out the people more fast (the carrera was about 5 years or so), now are only 4, and you recibe a speciallization in software or hardware more electronic, personally I dont care if I go out of the school one year later, but If I recibe the education of the two speciallizations at the same time.

The only that we can do now for this thing about Universities, is drive our own carrera, and dont let all the work to the teachers, and the structure that follow the University, some times happend that you have a objetive, and the place that you go have a similar, but not really your objetive, then you need achieve both of them.

Have a nice day.
Posted on 2004-02-07 14:38:42 by rea
"hmmph" ?

what's that ? you're going at a hundred million miles per hour ?

you must be a whizz-kid then, one assumes...:eek:

bah ! humbug !...:rolleyes:
Posted on 2004-02-07 20:50:09 by argus
Each people in the world is a whizz-kid ;).

Actually I am not at that velocity, but eventually I can overpass it :D.

I have some projects that I start a lot of time a go (need a lot of time), and by the nature of them, slow my self (only at the look and feel, internally was a grouw up), they will be terminated in the next moths, and I will write over them, but the true, is that this not end with the termination and write, is only a phase, it only starts.... the project have like 9 years now :), near the middle of my actual life. I need do eventually some things and let my self grow, if I can't, I will fail in some way, with my project.

But yes, at the end is like "humbug" if there are not proofs.

Only let the time show the truth, the time will come eventually, and you and I will know what is.

Have a nice day or night.
Posted on 2004-02-08 14:41:23 by rea