newb questions, hit the hardware or not?

[Thorham]

You tell'm, matthey

[Thorham]

would be bug ridden by using assembly

Blame the language for bugs, what a complete and utter nonsense.

Also, just because people optimize implementations, doesn't mean they are unable to choose the right algorithms to implement. You talk about this as if these are mutually exclusive, and it's nonsense.

Another thing, just because YOU think some things are a waste of time, doesn't mean that others don't. Some nerve you have talking for everyone like that.

And if you're using a compiler that writes lea (0,a0),a1 instead of move.l a0,a1, then you need a better compiler. It's crap code, whether you agree with that or not.

[Thorham]

I'll stick with assembly language on my A1200, because it's one of my computer related hobbies, and I'm certainly not going to have some bloated ego tell me it's a waste of time.

[Thorham]

with people justifying themselves by saying it's a myth that writing in assembler takes longer and is more error prone.

Who the hell ever said that? Of course it takes longer and is easier to mess up (doesn't mean you end up with bug riddled code, like someone claimed).

[Thorham]

That's a bit over the top he's perfectly merited to be this assertive, and he is right in what he says

No, he's not, because he's saying assembly language is a waste of time. To me, my hobby is NOT a waste of time, thank you very much. It would be a different story if he said that it's a waste of time for himself, but he acts as if it's a waste of time for everyone.

- there are no gains to be gotten from withering away doing micro-optimizations on parts that have little or no bearing on the performance of the program.

Obviously. It's just that when you write everything in assembler from the start (hobby!), you wouldn't write compiler style crap in the first place.

It's like a puzzle with beauty in the simplest and most logical code.

Indeed

Some people have to code for a living

Fortunately I don't

[Thorham]

How does "easier to mess up" not mean "you end up with bug riddled code"?

Just because it's easier to make mistakes doesn't mean you can't properly debug your code. Writing good software in assembly language just takes longer. Also, the bug riddled thing makes it sound like you can't write good software in assembly language, which is obviously nonsense.

[Thorham]

Reading data from floppy faster than from hard drive? What an absolute load of nonsense. Where do people come up with that crap?

[Thorham]

Peecee operating system in assembly language: http://www.menuetos.net.

[Thorham]

No, no, no, Thorham! You can't manage a large-scale project in assembler, therefore that doesn't exist!

Even if you could, it would probably end up being riddled with bugs anyway :rofl:

[Thorham]

Anyone who says that managing big assembly language projects is impossible, is basically saying that we humans are too damned stupid for that. Speak for yourself, please.

[Thorham]

Again, you apparently haven't tried that yet.

You're right, I haven't. Doesn't mean it's impossible.

You know, (but probably haven't experienced this) a piece of software is more than a collection of instructions.

Obviously. A system is always more than the sum of it's parts.

Anyhow, since you haven't gotten through this, I suggest that you just try. I would have had one or two assignments for you, to be written completely in assembler, *BY YOU*. If go you through this, and complete this in time, I stand corrected.

I have some interesting things I've been wanting to do for a long time now. One of which is a new, written from scratch, modern GUI system for 68k Amigas. Another one is a new OS.

What are those assignments you have in mind?

Be warned, however. This will not be an easy untertaking. It is designed *not to be easy*, it is a "real life" project and not a toy project like your average demo.

Wouldn't have it any other way

[Thorham]

Or you look at the existing systems and improve one of them?

Sorry, but no. I want my own system that's more modern than what's available now for 68k. The idea is to start from scratch, and use the OS for user IO. And yes, that means it would only run on it's own screen.

That many people wrote in assembler many years ago was because of the lack of system ressources and not because most people liked it.

It's a hobby for me.

And as I said I am right now aware of a number of different cores for FPGAs that are in development.

I'm interested in writing Amiga software. If someone wants to run Amiga software, let them use an Amiga (or an emu)!

[Thorham]

if you do not care if other people can run it then go

Maybe I put it a little too harshly. The intention is to write true Amiga software that goes further then what's currently available, especially on lower end 20s and 30s with some fastmem. If that's successful, it shouldn't be a big deal to add some chunky GFX support for GFX cards.

The emphasis is on OCS/ECS/AGA+20s/30s, because I believe these machines are capable of more than what we're seeing today. All that's available is old desktops and old GUIs, and this can be massively modernized without any crazy requirements (obviously some of the eye candy will be missing, but that's not what makes a modern GUI system modern).

All of the low level graphics code for this will be planar blitting routines, some c2p, and a hardware sprite for the mouse pointer. To get this stuff to work on GFX cards would require adding some code to access the GFX card functions, add chunky versions of the planar blitting routines (which are vastly easier to write than the planar ones) and to not use the c2p. Certainly not a massive task when you have an actual system running. It's just something I wouldn't do from the start if I would take on a project like this.

As for the 68k assembly language, that's not negotiable It's a hobby after all

[Thorham]

Ok, here are a couple of ideas. Write a complete JPEG 2000 codec, from scratch, from the specs, in assembler. If that's not interesting enough, you can also start with HEVC (the latest MPEG standard), again from the specs. For the first project, I could give you help since I did this. For the second, I would be of no help since it's not exactly my branch.

I lack the math knowledge to implement these optimally, and they're boring to me. Also, MPEG is useless on my preferred targets (20's and 30's with some fastmem) because they're just not fast enough.

What about that GUI system I was talking about? This would be much more interesting for me, because it also requires designing everything. Coding from specs is boring to me, and I want the freedom to do what I want. It also doesn't seem to be a small project.

[Thorham]

So did I when I started. That's not an argument - learn it. You might experience something new.  Then make it fast enough. (-;

Yeah, that probably is a bad argument, but it's just not my cup of tea.

Real world software development is hardly ever "doing what you want".

It is when you're doing it as a hobby. Not always, of course. You may end up having to write some things for your project that you don't feel like writing.

GUI systems, in a sense, are not very challenging, and neither very demanding (I wrote one for SDL in a matter of weeks, not months).

I'm talking about the larger projects like Gnome and KDE. These were undoubtedly not written in a couple of weeks.

So, please, let's come up with some projects that have a challenge in it due to their complexity. A GUI system is not that complex (been there, done that).

Perhaps not very complex, but also not very small, and a good, modern GUI system is quite useful at least.

The thing that's most interesting for me to do that's also complex is writing a new OS from scratch. Should be sufficiently challenging.

[Thorham]

You might want to read this:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

I never said that I can take on large, complex projects in assembly language by myself and get it right, I said that it's not impossible to do large, complex projects in assembly language and do them properly. Although I'm fairly confident, I'd have to try and see for myself if I could do it or not.