OSDev.org

Combuster wrote:

trident wrote:... was unnecessary and continues to be unnecessary.

Therefore, you carry no metal, walk around in a piece of hide and have no house but a cave, because what was normal in the stone age continues to be best practice now.


That's the only argument you make, and you insist on repeating it.

My girlfriend noted how his replies are mostly just repeating stuff people said and suggested he might be a Markov Chain ala Mark V Shaney. That made me laugh.

But seriously, OP, why do you keep trying to talk about writing in hex and machine code when you can just do it? You don't need the validation of every computer-related community you can sign up for. Just find the tools and try it.

konacake wrote:But seriously, OP, why do you keep trying to talk about writing in hex and machine code when you can just do it? You don't need the validation of every computer-related community you can sign up for. Just find the tools and try it.

Here, here. The most sensible answer is for you to try writing programs in machine code yourself, and see how effective you are compared to what you can do in a high-level language. It is possible that you will find machine code appealing to you, as it has to some others... but then again, perhaps not. Assuming you are using an x86 system of some sort, the X86 Opcode and Instruction Reference would be a good place to start.

BTW, what languages do you know, and how experienced in them are you? Your questions seem to indicate that you are something of a novice at programming in general, which would make an interest in OS development premature.

trident wrote:The difficulty that I have is that I suspect very that the real programming always was and continues to be the programming in machine code.

If Richard Hamming said the truth when he said that a real programmer would not stoop to wasting machine capacity to do the assembly, I suspect very that always been waste and continues to be wasting the machine capacity to do the assembly.

Perhaps you'd care to define what "real programming" and "real programmers" are, beyond the implicit tautology thus far.

I think you can be sure that anyone who talks about "real programmers" isn't one.

Hi,

iansjack wrote:I think you can be sure that anyone who talks about "real programmers" isn't one.

I think I just found a name for my programming language!


Cheers,

Brendan

Brendan wrote:Hi,

iansjack wrote:I think you can be sure that anyone who talks about "real programmers" isn't one.

I think I just found a name for my programming language!

Well, considering that before I came up with 'Thelema', my original language idea was called 'Obscene', I can't see why 'Real' couldn't be a programming language, so yeah.

Or, to give a twist to things, I used to joke that programmers who used Self were obviously high-level mystics, being Self-programmers.

Did you base that on Blue? Perhaps we should just chill out and be Cool Programmers.

iansjack wrote:Did you base that on Blue?

Now I know why that song sounds so synthesized.

Schol-R-Lea

trident wrote:Re: Is necessary develop currently in Assembly, ..., hex code?

trident wrote:

Schol-R-LEA wrote: Even by the mid-1960s, hand-coding machine code was becoming a lost art, and few regretted that fact.

Schol-R-LEA wrote: Because assembly language made it unnecessary, and made it clear how error-prone hand-assembling programs was.

Schol-R-LEA wrote:Sorry, the phrase 'few regretted the fact is an English language colloquialism, with the emphasis on the word 'few'. It is in fact an example of understatement; it means, 'almost nobody regretted the fact except a handful of cranks'.

Schol-R-LEA wrote:By 1965 or so, no one of any importance thought it was still necessary to write hand-coded machine code in hex or octal, and even assembly language was largely seen as unnecessary except for certain limited purposes. While assembly programming of applications lingered on into the early 1980s for the sake of efficiency, most programming was done in high-level languages, and as compilers got more efficient (and machines grew ever more powerful) regular use of assembly faded in history.

What are the names of who regretted that fact and the that said who regretted that fact?

What does it matter?

If you really want an answer, let's say Cornelius Smith, Shuckborough Howe, and Persephone Goodwidow.

This thread has become a massive accumulation of innecessary stuff (just like GNU ). Does this really matter?

No, there's just a weirdo talking stupid pointless stuff

iansjack wrote:What does it matter?

Because the OP is doing a research paper and trying to get the members of this forum to do the hard work for him.

Requesting a lock.

Possibly, but to me they just sound like one of those "assembler is best" Luddites.

trident wrote:Schol-R-Lea

trident wrote:

Schol-R-LEA wrote: Even by the mid-1960s, hand-coding machine code was becoming a lost art, and few regretted that fact.

Schol-R-LEA wrote: Because assembly language made it unnecessary, and made it clear how error-prone hand-assembling programs was.

Schol-R-LEA wrote:Sorry, the phrase 'few regretted the fact is an English language colloquialism, with the emphasis on the word 'few'. It is in fact an example of understatement; it means, 'almost nobody regretted the fact except a handful of cranks'.

What are the names of who regretted that fact and the that said who regretted that fact?

Please excuse me, I tried to edit the message.