[Daniel_Van_Zant]

I'm curious from anyone who has done it. Is there any "pleasure" to be had in learning or implementing assembly (like there is for LISP or RISC-V) or is it something you learn and implement because you want to do something else (like learning COBOL if you need to work with certain kinds of systems). It has always piqued my interest but I don't have a good reason in my day-to-day job to get into it. Wondering if it is worth committing some time to for the fun of it.

[msaltz]

I did the first 27 chapters of this tutorial just because I was interested in learning more and it was thoroughly enjoyable: https://mariokartwii.com/armv8/

I actually quite like coding in assembly now (though I haven’t done much more than the tutorial, just made an array library that I could call from C). I think it’s so fun because at that level there’s very little magic left - you’re really saying exactly what should happen. What you see is mostly what you get. It also helped me understand linking a lot better and other things that I understood at a high level but still felt fuzzy on some details.

Am now interested to check out this ffmpeg tutorial bc it’s x86 and not ARM :)

[Daniel_Van_Zant]

This looks to be very cool will check it out. Wild to see it on a Mario Kart Wii Site, but I guess modders/hackers are one of the groups of people who still need to work with assembly frequently.

[crq-yml]

Learning at least one assembly language is very rewarding because it puts you in touch with the most primitive forms of practical programming: while there are theoretical models like Turing machines or lambda calculus that are even more simplistic, the architectures that programmers actually work with have some forgiving qualities.

It isn't a thing to be scared of - assembly is verbose, not complex. Everything you do in it needs load and store, load and store, millions of times. When you add some macros and build-time checks, or put it in the context of a Forth system(which wraps an interpreter around "run chunks of assembly", enabling interactive development and scripting) - it's not that far off from C, and it removes the magic of the compiler.

I'm an advocate for going retro with it as well; an 8-bit machine in an emulator keeps the working model small, in a well-documented zone, and adds constraints that make it valuable to think about doing more tasks in assembly, which so often is not the case once you are using a 32-bit or later architecture and you have a lot of resources to throw around. People who develop in assembly for work will have more specific preferences, but beginners mostly need an environment where the documentation and examples are good. Rosetta Code has some good assembly language examples that are worth using as a way to learn.

[btown]

One “fun” thing about it is that it’s higher level than you think, because the actual chip may do things with branch prediction and pipelining that you can only barely control.

I remember a university course where we competed on who could have the most performant assembly program for a specific task; everyone tried various variants of loop unrolling to eke out the best performance and guide the processor away from bad branch predictions. I may or may not have hit Ballmer Peak the night before the due date and tried a setup that most others missed, and won the competition by a hair!

There’s also the incredible joy of seeing https://github.com/chrislgarry/Apollo-11 and quipping “this is a Unix system; I know this!” Knowing how to read the language of how we made it to the moon will never fade in wonder.

Short answer: yes!

[brown]

Learning assembly was profound for me, not because I've used it (I haven't in 30 years of coding), but because it completed the picture - from transistors to logic gates to CPU architecture to high-level programming. That moment when you understand how it all fits together is worth the effort, even if you never write assembly professionally.

[renox]

While I think that learning assembly is very useful, I think that one must be careful at applying assembly language concepts in a HLL C/X++/Zig..

For example, an HLL pointer is different from an assembly pointer(1). Sure the HLL pointer will be lowered to an assembly language pointer eventually but it still has a different semantic.

1: because you're relying on the compiler to use efficiently the registers, HLL pointers must be restricted otherwise programs would be awfully slow as soon as you'd use one pointer.

[Daniel_Van_Zant]

This out of everything, convvinced me. The more I get the "full picture" the more I appreciate what a wondrous thing computers are. I've learned all the way down to Forth/C and from the bottom up to programming FPGAs with Verilog so Assembly may be just what I need to finally close that last gap.

[daeken]

I have spent the last ~25 years deep in assembly because it's fun. It's occasionally useful, but there's so much pleasure in getting every last byte where it belongs, or working through binaries that no one has inspected in decades, or building an emulator that was previously impossible. It's one of the few areas where I still feel The Magic, in the way I did when I first started out.

[kevingadd]

Learning assembly is really valuable even if you never write any. Looking at the x64 or ARM64 assembly generated by i.e. the C or C# you write can help you understand its performance characteristics a lot better, and you can optimize based on that knowledge without having to drop down to a lower level.

Of course, most applications probably never need optimization to that degree, so it's still kind of a niche skill.

[ghhrjfkt4k]

I once used it to get a 4x speedup of sqrt computations, by using SIMD. It was quite fun, and also quite self contained and manageable.

The library sqrt handles all kinds of edge-cases which prevent the compiler from autovectorizing it.

[sigbottle]

If you're working with C++ (and I'd imagine C), knowing how to debug the assembly comes up. And if you've written assembly it helps to be aware of basic patterns such as loops, variables, etc. to not get completely lost.

Compilers have debug symbols, you can tune optimization levels, etc. so it's hopefully not too scary of a mess once you objdump it, but I've seen people both use their assembly knowledge at work and get rewarded handsomely for it.

[bitwize]

If you want to get the ultimate performance out of a processor, understanding assembly is paramount. Writing it by hand is less critical today than it was in the days of old 8- and 16-bit CPUs when memory was at a premium, instruction cycle counts were known constants, and sequential execution was guaranteed. But being able to read your compiler's output and understand what the optimizer does is a huge performance win.

[jwr]

Yes, it is definitely worth it. You get a much better understanding of CPU architectures. Also, most of your knowledge will be applicable to any platform.

[tengwar2]

Depends on whether you have a suitable problem, and the problem domains have shrunk greatly over the last 40 years. I've used it for bit-twiddling in real-time data acquisition; for implementing a GUI (on OS/2 1.0, which didn't come with one) and for acquiring a handy character set for the same from DOS; for accessing some obscure features of the PC architecture (thanks, Thom Hogan); for trying unsuccessfully to access paged screen memory with an RSX on the Z80 based Amstrad; and for successfully implementing an RSX to quash high-bit characters from the keyboard on the same to deal with an editor which had an array of only 128 characters for deciding what to do with input.

All of them apart from the screen memory thing were fun, but the only one which could be useful these days is the bit-twiddling. All the rest have been made obsolete by improved operating systems, so that the domain of useful assembler programs shrinks ever further. OTOH, debugging them is vastly easier than in the old days where all you got was random lines drawn across your screen as the system crashed, and you couldn't even single-step because you had to bank-switch out.

[AnyTimeTraveler]

I learned 8086 (not x86) assembly in a university course during my bachelors degree and won a contest to create the first correct implementation that would play "Jingle Bells" on the PC-Speaker[0] attached to the custom built computer. That was very fun and I kept playing around with assembly a bit afterwards, but never got around to learning any of the extensions made in x86 assembler and beyond.

In my masters degree, there was another course, where one built their own computer PCB in Eagle, got it fabbed and then had to make a game for the 8052 CPU on there. 8052 assembly is very fun! The processor has a few bytes of ram where every bit is individually addressable and testable. I built the game Tetris on three attached persistence of vision LED-Matrices[1]. Unfortunately, the repository isn't very clean, but I used expressive variable names, so it should be readable. I did create my own calling convention for performance reasons and calculated how many cpu cycles were available for game logic between screen refreshes. Those were all very fun things to think about :)

Reading assembly now has me look up instruction names here and there, but mostly I can understand what's going on.

[0] https://github.com/AnyTimeTraveler/HardwareNaheProgrammierun... [1] https://github.com/AnyTimeTraveler/HardwarenaheSystementwick...

[pjmlp]

It was cool back in the day, when the alternative was BASIC, also during the demoscene early days.

Nowadays most of that can be done with intrinsics, which were already present in some 1960's system programming languages, predating UNIX for a decade.

Modern Assembly is too complex, it is probably easier to target retrogaming, or virtual consoles, if the purpose is having fun.

[anta40]

I do it purely for fun: learning NES/Sega/GBA coding, hopefully being able to write simple games one day.

When lockdown started in 2020, I thought working from home would give me more spare time, thus enrolled those classes on Udemy.

I'm a mobile app dev (Java/Kotlin), and assembly is practically irrelevant for daily use cases.

[saagarjha]

There's still a lot of reasons to learn it to apply your skills, not just because you want to do it for fun. It's quite helpful when debugging, critical in fields like binary security or compilers, and basically the whole game if you're writing (say) SIMD algorithms.

[nevi-me]

I'm about 60% with RISC-V, I'm enjoying learning it, and my use-case is being able to embed some assembly on ESP32 code.

A few years ago I embarked on learning ARM assembly, I also got far, but I found it more laborious somehow. x64 is just too much for me to want to learn.

[colanderman]

Depends on the ISA. ARM32 is a lot more enjoyable to work with than x86-64. In-order VLIW architectures like TileGX and Blackfin (IIRC) are fun if you like puzzles. Implementing tight loops of vectorized operations on most any ISA is similarly entertaining.

[mobiledev2014]

Given there’s a mini genre of games that emulate using assembly to solve puzzles the answer is clearly yes. Not sure if any of them teach a real language.

The most popular are the Zachtronics games and Tomorrow Corp games. They’re so so good!

[gostsamo]

I took a course in it in college. Extreme fun. Currently, python microservices don't have much need of this exact skill, but it gave me a significant confidence bust at the time that I actually know what is going on.

[YZF]

It's a lot of fun and you get a better understanding of what goes on under the hood for everything running on your machine.

[dinkumthinkum]

I mean, some people are interested in computers. Some people are interested in performance. Some people like to understand how the things they work with and use on a regular basis work at a very fundamental level; it's not like understanding assembly is like trying to understand computing via physics, it is directly a part of the process. I think there was a time when many people found it exciting to learn, still there are some, but now there are so many non-technical programmers working in the field, making web pages, etc., that it is a minority percentage compared earlier times.