People always say that one of the important attributes of the C programming language is that you can look at the code and very clearly see the assembler that the compiler will produce.<\/p>\n
But (I think) ever since I did assembler in class, no matter the language, I could see\/map it to how the compiler would translate it to assembler.<\/p>\n
In fact, it bothered me to no end. When I was learning Perl, it was very difficult at first to learn to trust the interpreter to take care of large swathes of the task, to let go of control. I could see all of the horribly inefficient things it must be doing behind the scenes (‘what do you mean, dynamic typing?!?’), and for a long time, my Perl would read very much like my C[1].<\/p>\n
But then I discovered regex.[2] And learned about premature optimization.<\/p>\n
Now my bash commands read like my Perl.<\/p>\n
[1]It probably still does, but it’s starting to bleed back now. I’m now reminded of the dangers of buffer overflows whenever I use scanf.<\/p>\n
[2]If you are reading this, you likely will have seen Regex Golf<\/a>, or the first (that I saw) Regex Crossword<\/a>. (LOOK THEY MADE MORE. THIS IS AMAZING.<\/a>)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" People always say that one of the important attributes of the C programming language is that you can look at the code and very clearly see the assembler that the compiler will produce. But (I think) ever since I did assembler in class, no matter the language, I could see\/map it to how the compiler … Continue reading Seeing the Assembly Through the Cs<\/span>