IoT puts assembly language back on the charts

Re: You can "learn" assembly?

Something that's so small that it doesn't need (or have space for) a runtime library? Or for actually *writing* the runtime library and CPU startup code that you need to actually get to the high-level language code.

Re: You can "learn" assembly?

If they're using the Apollo lander code as an example.. it's tight code. Nothing fancy like startup code or libraries. Just pure "do this".

Writing for the assembler isn't the hard part. It's writing for the chip and board. Methinks if it's embedded, they're not giving the coder a lot of space.

Hmmm.... maybe this is one reason security is crap on these devices. The "oh we only have enough space for the make-it-work-stuff... something else will have to provide the security."

Re: You can "learn" assembly?

More like...instruction set based. I've programmed in SPS, Autodcoder, Compass, and ALC. All of them assembly languages and none of them ran on microprocessors.

Re: You can "learn" assembly?

... Yes, and no.

Yes, assembly is tied directly to the architecture, so varies accordingly. Learning one is NOT learning all.

No, because there is a paradigm, a way of thinking, that is different from higher level languages. Once you learn how to program in machine language, moving to a new machine is mainly just learning the architecture, syntax and op codes. I know, that sounds like all of it, but it's not really... There's that difference in thinking from other languages.

I was lucky enough to have access to a very simple machine when I was young, an IBM 1620, where I was able to teach myself its machine code. In spite of the fact that it was a register-less system, applying the understanding to new CPUs has never been a problem for me. Generally takes me about a week to get comfortable, a month to get proficient.

Then again, I'm one of those weirdos who LIKES programming in assembly. So maybe my experience doesn't count.

Anyway, I agree it's not a language per se, but I feel that knowing a machine language gets you closer than only knowing only high-level languages. (Or 'C'. Which is basically an abstraction layer over machine language. IMHO. Still protects you from the underlying architecture.)

Sorry you don't like it; you are in the majority. Your contempt is noted.

Re: You can "learn" assembly?

There are, in fact, assembly language courses at schools. They cover techniques for managing the call stack, passing parameters, multi-threading and interrupts, building and parsing data structures, breaking down mathematical formulas into bitwise operations, macros, optimizing instruction pipelines, virtual addressing, various means of interacting with hardware, and playing nice with an operating system. The details vary with each system but the basics remain the same.

missing the forest for the trees

Assembler interesting yes but it doesn't change the fact the IoT can go fsck itself, as well as the 1%ers who want to data mine all the peons while the only ones who will be able to afford appliances with privacy are said 1%ers. Its coming have no worries. They will sell it to the mouth breathers by using terms like smart appliance x and other whiz bang marketing terms. Look no further than Android and Windows 10 for example to see said trojan horse free "goodies". Already your car's mandatory black box can be used against you by the megacorps. Not like the Millennials understand privacy so worse case they have to play the long game a bit.

The most probable explanation is that you're applying for wrong jobs.

Re: In fact, all IOT should be coded in Java. At least there would no security issues.

Right, because it's the language that decides if there can be security issues, not coders writing sloppy code.

I can't agree with that. In my opinion, coders the world over have demonstrated a disturbing knack of being able to create security issues in any language.

Re: run-anywhere processor/platform independence

That is a concept dedicated to full-blown computers with powerful CPUs at 3GHz or more, gobs of RAM and a fair amount of storage space. And even there, it's not guaranteed.

IoT is a world of microprocessors that run in the Khz, next-to-no RAM and zero storage space. There is no possibility of platform independance here, unless you're ready to buy a toothbrush that is connected to your PC.

So, you're right, there is no relevance to run-anywhere in IoT. IoT is just-run-there-and-be-happy-you-can.

Re: Assembly Language?

"I can't see its relevance to run-anywhere processor/platform independence."

yeah, I guess you'll just have to continue coding C-pound for ".Not". Which was STILL under 5% on the TIOBE index, from what I can tell.

On a related note, really good C code is a close second to tiny assembler code for microcontrollers. but sometimes you have to at LEAST do inline assembly, especially to take advantage of some special instructions (like in a bootloader, flashing NVRAM - did this for a project that ended up on github, XMega port for Arduino IDE).

Re: Stop, just stop

"Java is not 3 times more in demand than C#"

*sniff* *sniff* - smells like a Microsoft Shill

I mentioned C-pound already, and that ".Not" _thing_ that goes with it. It deserves it's "under 5%" ranking on TIOBE.

whereas, the ENTIRE point was that IoT and other micro-controller-based projects *DEMAND* the kinds of low-level coding that assembly language lets you do. And if you're mixing inline assembler with your C code, it's the same *kinds* of coding as pure assembler [except you now get to deal with some of the quirky syntax things that 'inline' forces you to deal with].

explained HERE for AVR processors:

http://www.nongnu.org/avr-libc/user-manual/inline_asm.html

it takes the *right* kind of coder to deal with this kind of thing, yeah

Re: Apollo 11 AGC

I recommend reading

Digital Apollo: Human and Machine in Spaceflight for the full-fat context!

Re: Run anywhere?

I was considered for a pdp-11 programming job a couple of years ago, but was living in the wrong country at the time.

Re: Are there chips with no development support?

One nitpick first: The PDP-8 could only directly address 4K words (or 256? words, for a more stringent definition of "directly") but they (most models? I don't know of an exception) could use banking to extend that to something like 32K max. Later models could go even larger, maybe a Meg (I remember an ad featuring an elephant).

As for "too little memory", I recently did a small job where the customer had already committed to a PIC with something like 96 bytes of RAM and 1.5K of ROM. I suppose someone, somewhere might be daft enough to program such a chip in C, but it would be wrong in so many ways. Among others, I needed to use coroutines to meet the spec. Also, in my experience, the compilers for such machines are not exactly "best in breed" ("Standards? More like Guidelines, really"), and finally, I have rarely met a person who is just fine with C but draws the line at assembly. If they have made a choice based on a real evaluation of the needs and capabilities, maybe. But most of what I see, (especially) including these comments, is "gut revulsion", not "real evaluation".

Re: Are there chips with no development support?

An old friend of mine refers to C as the "gentleman's assembler".

There are games you can play in assembler such as manually overlaying use once initialisation code and read/write storage such as I/O buffers that I'm not sure you can play with complied languages. If you are really memory constrained you grab at every straw :-)