Sign In
Create Account
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe on Youtube
From other thread, it was mentioned that this kind of Assembly is mainly used in cracking codes.
But are there still companies that are hiring assembly programmers? Are they paid highly? For the skill of this kind of program is becoming fewer because of the popularity of the object-based programming languages.
14 replies to this topic
Back to top|
|
|
#2
Posted 24 May 2006 - 11:22 PM
Frantic
-
- Members
-
- 91 posts
Learning Programmer
I dont think so. Unless they have old legacy applications using these programs.
They would have a really tough time finding people who know Assembly these days.
They would have a really tough time finding people who know Assembly these days.
#3
Posted 25 May 2006 - 04:29 PM
encoder
-
- Members
-
- 40 posts
Learning Programmer
Yeah, that's what's exactly in my mind also. Assembly is really not easy to use and its codes are not so much friendly compare to the new programming languages now.
But is it possible that because assembly programmers are not so many today, they can charge high payment for their work?
But is it possible that because assembly programmers are not so many today, they can charge high payment for their work?
#4
Guest_Kaabi_*
Posted 04 July 2006 - 10:09 AM
Guest_Kaabi_*
Guest_Kaabi_*
-
- Guests
Since assembly is the hardest programming language (unless you count binary), I'm sure that assembly programmers get paid more than others. Can't assembly basically do anything, because it's the closest thing to binary?
#5
Posted 21 July 2006 - 01:01 PM
kromagnon
-
- Members
-
- 50 posts
Learning Programmer
^Yes. assembly CAN do anything, every assembly instruction is 1:1 with binary instructions, if you have a table, it's relatively easy to translate from assembly to binary
#6
Posted 22 July 2006 - 02:27 PM
dirkfirst
-
- Members
-
- 354 posts
Programming Expert
I don't understand what you mean by 1:1 with binary. If it was 1:1 wouldn't it be binary? Why not just use binary?
Can you make graphic apps with assembly?
Can you make graphic apps with assembly?
#7
Posted 22 July 2006 - 05:17 PM
TkTech
-
- Moderators
-
- 1,396 posts
The Crazy One
dirkfirst
He means that asmembler is one level to binary, ie 1:1
For example, C is 2:1, C->ASM->Binary
And realbasic is 4:1, RB->Interpreter->C++->ASM->Binary
Making graphics apps in ASM is easy under dos an x86 ( dont know about ppc ) but much harder when trying to use asm with the windows libs.
[encoder]
Sure there are places that higher ASM programmers. Usually the only way to make a profit is to freelance or know some other language as well. For example Doom 3 needed asm programmers to write part of the graphics lib so it was more efficient and compatible cross platform. Microsoft and Apple would higher you, as the bootsector and base kernel is Asm in both those OS's.
He means that asmembler is one level to binary, ie 1:1
For example, C is 2:1, C->ASM->Binary
And realbasic is 4:1, RB->Interpreter->C++->ASM->Binary
Making graphics apps in ASM is easy under dos an x86 ( dont know about ppc ) but much harder when trying to use asm with the windows libs.
[encoder]
Sure there are places that higher ASM programmers. Usually the only way to make a profit is to freelance or know some other language as well. For example Doom 3 needed asm programmers to write part of the graphics lib so it was more efficient and compatible cross platform. Microsoft and Apple would higher you, as the bootsector and base kernel is Asm in both those OS's.
#8
Posted 23 July 2006 - 06:14 AM
WingedPanther
-
- Moderators
-
- 16,831 posts
A spammer's worst nightmare
Additionally, there are several languages that allow you to embed ASM in them for certain aspects. C, C++, and Pascal/Delphi come to mind. Anyone who is doing systems level programming (drivers as well as OS) is likely to want ASM. It is THE language when speed and size are at a premium.
#9
Posted 23 July 2006 - 09:18 AM
kromagnon
-
- Members
-
- 50 posts
Learning Programmer
actually, by 1:1 I meant that it basically IS binary... for example, in a c++ program a single statement represents several binary instructions, but a single assembly language instruction only translates to a single binary instruction.
<!-- comment comment comment --></
#10
Posted 23 July 2006 - 09:58 AM
TkTech
-
- Moderators
-
- 1,396 posts
The Crazy One
kromangnon, ah sry, misunderstood.
#11
Posted 23 July 2006 - 11:30 AM
kromagnon
-
- Members
-
- 50 posts
Learning Programmer
#12
Guest_Kaabi_*
Posted 24 July 2006 - 03:53 PM
Guest_Kaabi_*
Guest_Kaabi_*
-
- Guests
TkTech said:
dirkfirst
He means that asmembler is one level to binary, ie 1:1
For example, C is 2:1, C->ASM->Binary
And realbasic is 4:1, RB->Interpreter->C++->ASM->Binary
He means that asmembler is one level to binary, ie 1:1
For example, C is 2:1, C->ASM->Binary
And realbasic is 4:1, RB->Interpreter->C++->ASM->Binary
Wow that's interesting, I've never heard of that "level" concept. But why isn't everything a "level one" language, as in couldn't it just be converted to binary directly, instead of having to go through all those other languages?
