Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!crash!pro-mansion.cts.com!psonnek
From: psonnek@pro-mansion.cts.com (Patrick Sonnek)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Subject: Re: Re- HLLs vs. Assembly
Message-ID: <8667@crash.cts.com>
Date: 18 Apr 91 13:16:07 GMT
Sender: root@crash.cts.com
Lines: 70

In-Reply-To: message from MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET

[Lots deleted......]

>They ARE machine specific, I agree, but. give surprising little understanding
>about machines in general?????  This, is, DEFINITELY not true!  I learned
>assembly on an 8-bit Franklin (Apple ][+ compatible) early last decade.
>It DRAMATICALLY increased my understand of how machines (ALL MACHINES) work.
>I learned how I/O works (I had absolutely NO idea before, even though I was
>fluent in BASIC, on both the Apple II and on a TRS-80).  I didn't understand
>how the computer knew what to do when I type CLS or HOME.  I knew I didn't
>have a program running that was waiting for those commands, and yet, there
>was not even a program in memory (that I knew of).  I couldn't understand
>how information was put and read from disk or tape.

I got interested in Assembler durring 2nd quarter, I found out just how much
stuff I could do with just a little bit of code.  The clincher was when I got
an assignment for COBOL 4 that If written in Assembler would have been a
very short program.  But in COBOL, I ended up writting a small novel!!

>The fact that any ONE assembly language is machine specific means virtually
>nothing.  The concepts are the same for all machines.
>  -they all have RAM
>    -RAM can be written to and read from
>  -they all have ROM
>    -ROM can be read from, looked at, but not changed.
>  -they all have I/O
>  -if any particular machine has more than one video mode, it has
>   softswitches to switch between them.
>  -if it can produce sound, the speaker must be clicked.

>Hardly any of this is machine specific. Sure, machine one may have a
>different address for a particlar softswitch or strobe or input registers or
>locations, than machine number two,
>but knowing HOW they work is much more important than exactly where they are.
>But, of course, if you're going to write a driver, it's necessary to know
>the specifics of that one machine.  But that doesn't mean that learning and
>understand the low level operations behind the high level structures isn't
>helpful.

I was taught only one assembler (BAL) I've since easily taught myself 2
others (TMS9900 & 6502)  I'm currently working on my 4th Assembler (80x86)

>It looks like we're moving into an era where there will be two types of
>'programmers'.  One type (the less educated one) will be more of a user than
>a progammer... much like my boss, who uses a shell or script psuedo language
>to get things done.  She understands NOTHING of what's really going on.

We call these types 'coders' :-p

>There won't be much difference between these users and Hypercard
>'programmers' Then, there will also be, educated programmers,
>who are REAL programmers.They
>will understand what's really going on.  They'll be able to dip into a hex
>dump and fix something.  They'll be the ones to save the 'psuedo programmers'
>butts when they get an unexpected glitch in a program and don't know what to
>do because they were taught that they'd never have any need for assembly
>language.  They'll be the ones who'll be able to write a quick hack patch to
>something just to get it working until a more structured version can be
>completed.  I could go on and on about the advantages of it, but I think I'll
>stop here.

The main reason I'm so overworked!

----
ProLine:  psonnek@pro-mansion    Sysop Pro-mansion: 507/726-6181
Internet: psonnek@pro-mansion.cts.com  MCImail      psonnek
UUCP:     crash!pro-mansion!psonnek
BITNET:   psonnek%pro-mansion.cts.com@nosc.mil
ARPA:     crash!pro-mansion!psonnek@nosc.mil