a simple question for you...
if u would compare ASL to other LANGUAGES ,, what is the big advantage of it??
Printable View
a simple question for you...
if u would compare ASL to other LANGUAGES ,, what is the big advantage of it??
ASM is closer in syntax and construct to the actual machine code that the processor understands - thus if you are a good ASM programmer you can develop code that runs in nearly perfect form.
Higher level languages - VB and such - translate the syntax and construct used - and will never be as close as ASM to the machine code instructions. That waste - that inability to optimize to within 100% of machine code instruction - is accepted because you can produce code with so much more ease then doing so with ASM.
Simply knowing ASM will assist any programmer, in my opinion, in developing better 3GL code.
You will know the difference between:
FOR X = 1 TO SOMEFUNCTIONCALL
and
Y = SOMEFUNCTIONCALL
FOR X = 1 TO Y
for instance...
All programming languages (like VB and C++) have their code translated by a compiler to Assembly and then to Machine Code (I think).
Assembly is a language, but it is a 1 to 1 translation to Machine Code. Other higher level languages have complicated syntax parsers (using recursion and tree data structures) to figure out how a line of code in VB for example will mean in Assembly/Machine Code.
Many languages do, many languages are compiled to some other intermediate language and some are compiled directly into machine code. And Microsoft has sold all 3 types.Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
And the best thing is.. if you can read Assembly you can Decompile Programs to Assembly and Edit the Program a bit ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by jeric_mandrake
"A bit" being the operative phrase, unless you consider sticking pins in your eyes "mild entertainment".Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Skull
It's more fun than it sounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Al42
We have different definitions of fun. Disassembling a few dozen K by hand isn't too bad, but modifying the disassembly of a 25 meg .exe that was written in .net isn't my idea of fun - it's easier (for me) to start from the problem and write the new code from scratch.
Actually .NET is quite easy to disassemble - and easier to modify than x86 :|
But 25mb is kinda deterring, just due the resource hogging of editing a 25mb file.
Arghhh....in my opinion Microsoft could have done a much better job than they did with .NET - i just don;t see how they could have made it so resource heavy.
Cheers.
25 meg with 24.5 of it probly being picture files ....
:ehh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimfort
Everything is pr0n.