I think all programmers should know machine code...

Andy Harglesis · 2011-05-18T11:47:37

I mean with all the "unknown and weird" difficulty behind the parsing, compiling and generating of the compiler, pre-processor, other programs and step, etc., isn't it nicer to know EXACTLY what you did, what's going on and what's what in your program? Not to sound crazy or trolly, but actually learning machine language or Assembly is definitely more favoring to programmers in the long run. Sure, #include <iostream> using namespace std; int main(){cout << "Hello, boring old high-level language!"; cin.get();} is definitely easier, but it's just so gloomy and dull after you realize how far you are from direct hardware access and control. It's like ... here's an example... I want to go see a basketball game. C++ is like sitting on the 18th row about 200 feet away from the court. Assembly is like sitting on the first row only 15 feet from the center of the court. The court itself is the processor... Understand? I feel that more programmers should dig deeper into what they're "really doing" rather than just tire themselves out with high-level lack of control, confusion on "APIs work", which is only 100 feet away from the game. It's a long walk, but for what? You can't actually see the game clearly, can you? And even with all of these "tools", nothing beats sitting right in front of the players and witnessing it up close and direct. It just, to me, seems like a big mess of disorder and tirade attempts for people to torture themselves learning these APIs, high-level languages, etc., when low-level is more right on to things and there's no memorizing/references of thousands of things that you don't even really know what they do 100%. ...I came to see a basketball game with binoculars on the last row. I can see it, but the people in the front are really witnessing the feel of it and getting more excitement, thrill and just full brain-eye accomplishment. I'm sorry if this comes off in a bad way, it's just an opinion.

owl

376

May 18, 2011 09:48 AM

get more efficient work done in my assembler and raw code, which I see performs better than 99% of all high-level codes.

Nothing like an efficient "nibbles" (snake) clone! The one Microsoft made in Q-Basic 20+ years ago was so laggy.

[size="2"]I like the Walrus best.

BitMaster

8,652

May 18, 2011 09:48 AM

As for the code, who here is going to be interested in 16-bit ASM for a dead OS (that I can't even find proof of its existence)? Not us. Not employers. Nobody.

I wouldn't say it just like that. There is something to say for having the ability to work in some weird platforms. Of course since none of the information we have been given so far is in any way verifiable and neither Google nor Wikipedia seem to work with what we have the more likely explanation is "made up code for made up operating system".

KidsLoveSatan

765

May 18, 2011 09:56 AM

All I needed was Assembly and Windows OS for some slightly "higher" graphics control.

Well, you better believe it. The assembler I use is an old one called FASM-T4. It's only available on XENIO-12 BEST OS. It's a 16bit operating system from 2004(not professionally made).

So what did you use Windows for? Or is Windows "XENIO-12 BEST OS"?

lpcstr

127

May 18, 2011 09:58 AM

[quote name='AndyWonHarglesis' timestamp='1305711672' post='4812408']
get more efficient work done in my assembler and raw code, which I see performs better than 99% of all high-level codes.

Nothing like an efficient "nibbles" (snake) clone! The one Microsoft made in Q-Basic 20+ years ago was so laggy.
[/quote]

I still have a copy sitting on my XT. Maybe I should go back and refactor it a bit. You never know when you may need a copy of nibbles for DOS. At least people have heard of that OS.

[quote name='lpcstr' timestamp='1305711322' post='4812402']
As for the code, who here is going to be interested in 16-bit ASM for a dead OS (that I can't even find proof of its existence)? Not us. Not employers. Nobody.

I wouldn't say it just like that. There is something to say for having the ability to work in some weird platforms. Of course since none of the information we have been given so far is in any way verifiable and neither Google nor Wikipedia seem to work with what we have the more likely explanation is "made up code for made up operating system".
[/quote]

Sure, if the OS/hardware actually existed and was still being used by lots of people or at least a handful of large companies, then I suppose it would be a useful skill. You could make a living off of it and I know people who do.

So what did you use Windows for? Or is Windows "XENIO-12 BEST OS"?

XENIO-12 is a snipe hunt.

owl

376

May 18, 2011 10:00 AM

[quote name='owl' timestamp='1305712091' post='4812414']
[quote name='AndyWonHarglesis' timestamp='1305711672' post='4812408']
get more efficient work done in my assembler and raw code, which I see performs better than 99% of all high-level codes.

Nothing like an efficient "nibbles" (snake) clone! The one Microsoft made in Q-Basic 20+ years ago was so laggy.
[/quote]

I still have a copy sitting on my XT. Maybe I should go back and refactor it a bit. You never know when you may need a copy of nibbles for DOS. At least people have heard of that OS.[/quote]

Make sure you port it to machine code. And please, do *not* start a recursive quotation here.

[size="2"]I like the Walrus best.

AndyHarglesis

-202

Author

May 18, 2011 10:01 AM

[quote name='lpcstr' timestamp='1305711322' post='4812402']
As for the code, who here is going to be interested in 16-bit ASM for a dead OS (that I can't even find proof of its existence)? Not us. Not employers. Nobody.

I wouldn't say it just like that. There is something to say for having the ability to work in some weird platforms. Of course since none of the information we have been given so far is in any way verifiable and neither Google nor Wikipedia seem to work with what we have the more likely explanation is "made up code for made up operating system".
[/quote]

The OS I use isn't made up. It's an independent team's OS called XENIO 12 BEST. It's a small OS that was only released in New Jersey(which is where I live).

Here's pictures of its logos and screenshots:

http://imageshack.us...85/xeniofm.jpg/

http://imageshack.us...ges/20/os2.gif/

The assembler I use: http://imageshack.us...emu8086big.gif/

AND here's a clear shot of the desktop loading: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/580/linkattackii.gif/

lpcstr

127

May 18, 2011 10:06 AM

http://imageshack.us...85/xeniofm.jpg/

http://imageshack.us...ges/20/os2.gif/

The assembler I use: http://imageshack.us...emu8086big.gif/

Well, thats says it all.

Funny though, how that image looks familiar. Very similar to OS/2, if the logo had been removed, then the image sized down, blurred, and had the color space lowered.

owl

376

May 18, 2011 10:07 AM

[quote name='AndyWonHarglesis' timestamp='1305712863' post='4812422']
http://imageshack.us...85/xeniofm.jpg/

http://imageshack.us...ges/20/os2.gif/

The assembler I use: http://imageshack.us...emu8086big.gif/

Well, thats says it all.
[/quote]

I think I need glasses.

[size="2"]I like the Walrus best.

AndyHarglesis

-202

Author

May 18, 2011 10:09 AM

[quote name='lpcstr' timestamp='1305713199' post='4812424']
[quote name='AndyWonHarglesis' timestamp='1305712863' post='4812422']
http://imageshack.us...85/xeniofm.jpg/

http://imageshack.us...ges/20/os2.gif/

The assembler I use: http://imageshack.us...emu8086big.gif/

Well, thats says it all.
[/quote]

I think I need glasses.
[/quote]

What says what all? O.o

Sorry though, yeah, it is kinda blurry because the resolution is very crappy and low and the screen capture program can't get a good picture of it when converted to .pictures