Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

I've found Cudder's site

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-14 13:18

https://www.grc.com/smgassembly.htm

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-14 13:24

Should we call him Steve Gibson now?

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-14 18:48

Am I sick? Perhaps. Am I a dinosaur destined for early extinction? Yeah, probably.

He said it himself.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-14 19:36

I wish more websites were designed that well.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-14 19:38

>>2
This is an assembler hobbyist's page. I'm fairly certain Cudder-san is not a hobbyist.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-14 19:57

Writing in assembler is the most disgusting idea in the whole sphere of computer arts. To make humans bow down in servitude to machines for the sole purpose of creating efficient code (which actually isn't more efficient than today's smart compilers) - this is preposterous. I think a good programmer should not know any assembly, should never read any assembly, nay, should be disgusted at the sight of assembly! The programmer should think in the world of pure language and logical patterns, never stopping to think about any "registers" or "pipelines".

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-14 20:03

>>6
Programs are useless without an execution model. You're better off arguing for your preferred one (probably a graph reduction machine, in your case).

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-14 22:38

I prefer the anus reduction machine.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-14 23:12

Thinking about physics is the most disgusting idea in the whole sphere of civil engineering. To make civil engineers bow down in servitude to nature for the sole purpose of creating safe structures (which actually aren't more safe than today's lego) - this is preposterous. I think a good civil engineer should not know any physics, should never read any physics, nay, should be disgusted at the sight of physics! The civil engineer should think in the world of pure lego and jewish plans never stopping to think about any "gravity" or "newtons".

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-14 23:15

What is he programming in? I don't program in windows but I like the look of this
http://www.grc.com/miscfiles/MasmCode.gif

http://www.grc.com/miscfiles/MasmCodeSnippet.gif

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-15 0:34

>>10
That would be Microsoft Macro Assembler. MASM is the assembler equivalent of Cfront: powerful and expressive, but disgustingly non-orthogonal and under-documented. As with Sepples, there are a few who use it because they must and many others who would be better served by a higher level language. I wouldn't recommend it.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-15 0:49

>>11
I mean the IDE, not the language.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-15 0:54

>>12
That's a pretty basic syntax highlighting scheme; could be anything really.

Name: Dubmanic 2014-12-15 1:55

>>11
MASM is the assembler equivalent of Cfront: powerful and expressive, but disgustingly non-orthogonal and under-documented. Also check my dubs. As with Sepples, there are a few who use it because they must and many others who would be better served by a higher level language.
Consider your double digits checked.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-15 10:43

https://www.grc.com/chroma.htm#features
Written in pure assembly language for smallest size and highest performance.

What sense does this make for a end user?

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-15 11:34

>>15
smallest size and highest performance.
YEAH WHAT SENSE DOES THAT MAKE? I LOVE MY PROGRAMS BEING SLOW AND BULKY

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-15 11:42

>>16
You're being sarcastic, but these programs are for Windows.
As if MB vs KB, or ms vs ns, is going to matter for a couple of toy utilities, given the gargantuan system required to even start these programs.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-15 12:40

Someone ask him why he doesn't use a less bloated OS

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-15 18:02

>>7
Execution models are the domain for implementers, not for programmers.

One and the same code can be executed on a multitude of platforms with a multitude of execution models. Unless that code is written in some slave lanuage like one of the assemblers.

The relation between pure language and assembly is like that between spirit and matter.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-15 19:24

Code written in a pure, architecture-independent language, is open for optimization. A future compiler may well compile it to code that is faster than any lowly, concrete assembly which won't even work for a slightly different architecture.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-15 19:49

Abstract bullshit rots your brain, it feels like you're listening to religious person when one of these guys opens his mouth.

Name: Abstrakt Dubz 2014-12-15 19:51

>>21
The relation between pure language and assembly is like that between spirit and matter.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-15 19:56

Assembly is for materialists only.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-15 23:11

I feel like I'm listening to an atheist whenever I come across extremely stupid things.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-15 23:22

time stamp dubs.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-15 23:43

badass https://www.grc.com/resume.htm

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-15 23:59

>>26
Fluent in many popular micro, mini, and mainframe computer machine/assembly languages including: 6502, 8080, Z80, 8088, 8086, 80286, 80386, 68000, 32000, COPS-400, TMS 1000, Nova, PDP-8, PDP-10, PDP-11, VAX 11/780, Interdata 7/16 & 7/32, and also with several higher-level languages including BASIC, C, PASCAL, MODULA, FORTH, ALGOL, FORTRAN, LISP and SMALLTALK.
More like dumbass, to suck so much primitive machine dick.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-16 5:32

>>19
All programmers are implementers and all languages have an execution model. You may maintain that higher level languages defined in terms of abstract machines are superior by some measure, but you can never escape the need for a machine of some kind. All computation is defined this way.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-16 7:28

>>28
But..computation is defined on theoretical machines...some of which cannot physically exist...why do you need anything besides your mind...

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-16 8:10

>>28,29
Don't know what they are talking about. Stop Now.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-16 8:58

>>30
Knows what he's talking about. Keep going.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-16 11:08

>>23
I'm a Marxist and I find this offensive!

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-16 12:10

>>31
You're an idiot. Why would he use "he" in the plural? check 'em

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-16 14:04

>>33
Disregard this idiot and his dubs.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-16 19:14

>>28
No, not all programmers are implementers of programming languages they program in. The proof of that is that the number of popular languages' implementations is much less than the number of programmers of those languages.

Many languages have several implementations, and many languages can be compiled with different compiler options that change the execution of pure, high-level code (for instance, in order to optimize it). For example, C code compiled with "gcc" will execute differently than code compiled with "gcc -O2".

And if you visit the Land of Total Languages, things will get even stranger: code in such languages produces the same results when executed call-by-value as when it is executed call-by-need, which is an even more drastic change of the execution model than optimizations or using a slightly different compiler.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-16 21:38

>>29
Your mind is a machine comma blown.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-16 21:39

>>36
my dick = blown

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-16 23:39

>>37
cumputer simulation?
Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode + RSS -