ASM?

[fusion_X5]

Do I really need to learn how to use ASM? Some people say :???: that it was useless.

[wizardlife]

Do I really need to learn how to use ASM? Some people say :???: that it was useless.

Prolly is, since just about anything you could want to do with it someone else has already done for you...


Are you just some n00b, or do you actually have something you want to do with ASM?

[Agamemnus]

ASM lets you do stuff that QB can't. Or can't fast enough.

But there are libs for almost everything.

In C, though, you can do everything that ASM can do. Partly because you can *call direct ASM* (unlike QB peek and poke>> but there IS a qb program to convert ASM to peek/poke and back. somewhere online.

[Glenn]

Nothing useful was ever written with it. The language that ASM assembles to is even more useless. (All *it* does is make computer CPUs *do* something. What good is *that*?)

[relsoft]

Nothing useful was ever written with it. The language that ASM assembles to is even more useless. (All *it* does is make computer CPUs *do* something. What good is *that*?)

LOL

[Plasma]

In C, though, you can do everything that ASM can do. Partly because you can *call direct ASM* (unlike QB peek and poke>> but there IS a qb program to convert ASM to peek/poke and back. somewhere online.

You can "call direct asm" in QB. It's called "CALL ABSOLUTE". And PEEK/POKE just read and write bytes in memory. They have nothing to do with assembly. (Although many times POKE is used to load code into memory so that it can be used with CALL ABSOLUTE...)

[toonski84]

How glenn so sarcastic put it, assembly is called a low level langage, which means you call individual instructions with it. It's the fastest language, but unfortunately takes the longest to code. It's most often used, like people have said, to write single routines that are faster than anything you could produce with a high level language. Especially with QB, it being the pinnacle of speed and all. (that was sarcasm again)

[Agamemnus]

Ok, you're right. I don't know how it's done with QB, but it isn't too user-friendly. But it is supposed to be user friendly in C.

[toonski84]

that's because qb has no inline asm support. all that means is you have to compile it with an assembler before you put it in qb. (or, for the more daring, look up the bytecodes yourself and use strings).

[Glenn]

ASM wasn't created for users. It was created for programmers. (Nothing about C looks to me like whoever developed it was thinking of a *user*. (It wouldn't be particularly useful if they had.) Ever met one of *those*? They don't program. They tend to think that computers are operated by little tiny scientists holding up number cards behind your screen. That's why windows seems to slow down or just stop sometimes; one of the scientists has to take a potty-break.) And if having to POKE opcodes into a memory area is what's making you think ASM/machine code in QB is hard... well, go to the trouble of learning enough ASM to make the process worthwhile and you'll realize you're making up an excuse.