Learning Computer Science via Assembly Language

johnnyb writes " A new book was just released which is based on a new concept - teaching computer science through assembly language (Linux x86 assembly language, to be exact). This book teaches how the machine itself operates, rather than just the language. I've found that the key difference between mediocre and excellent programmers is whether or not they know assembly language. Those that do tend to understand computers themselves at a much deeper level. Although unheard of today, this concept isn't really all that new -- there used to not be much choice in years past. Apple computers came with only BASIC and assembly language, and there were books available on assembly language for kids. This is why the old-timers are often viewed as 'wizards': they had to know assembly language programming. Perhaps this current obsession with learning using 'easy' languages is the wrong way to do things. High-level languages are great, but learning them will never teach you about computers. Perhaps it's time that computer science curriculums start teaching assembly language first."

Comments

Not So New Concept

[andyrut]

Although unheard of today, this concept isn't really all that new -- there used to not be much choice in years past.

While starting Computer Science students off with assembly (without first introducing them to a high-level language) may be a relatively new concept these days, the idea of teaching low-level languages to Computer Science students is not a revolutionary technique whatsoever. Every decent Computer Science curriculum includes several semesters of courses in which assembly language is required, to demonstrate their knowledge of basic computer processes.

That reminds me of a great fortune:

"The C Programming Language -- A language which combines the
flexibility of assembly language with the power of assembly language."

Re:Not So New Concept

[FreshFunk510]

I disagree. Call me a skeptic but when he starts out his review with:

"A new book was just released which is based on a new concept .." He feigns disassociation with the book. He could've easily said "My new book was just release..".

New?

[Sloppy]

A new book was just released which is based on a new concept - teaching computer science through assembly language

Uh, assembly language for teaching isn't exactly a new idea. Knuth's AoCP books used MIX, a "fake" assembly language, even though easy-to-read languages (e.g. ALGOL) were already around at the time. And he wasn't even trying to teach fundamentals about computers work -- he was teaching higher-level stuff, algorithms in those books. Think about just how weird that is.

Perhaps this current obsession with learning using 'easy' languages is the wrong way to do things.

That depends on what you're trying to learn. I think someone with a CS degree should have a deep understanding of things, and should have at least some experience working in assembly language, managing memory, writing compilers, etc. But that doesn't mean that high-level languages are a bad idea when they're learning higher-level concepts. Do you want someone wasting their time remembering what is being stored in what register, when they're learning how to write a web browser? Of course not: you want them to be thinking about the real issues at hand.

Re:Probably a bad idea

[Total_Wimp]

The idea isn't to actually use the language but rather to learn it to help you understand other languages.

It's like learning Latin. Nobody actually uses it, but it can give you a deeper understanding of the languages that are based on it.

TW

Re:Good idea, Bad Idea

[RAMMS EIN]

``Bad Idea: Teaching CS by starting with one of the most cryptic languages around, and then trying to teach basic CS fundamentals.''

I completely disagree. Assembly is actually one of the simplest languages around. There is little syntax, and hardly any magic words that have to be memorized. Assembly makes an excellent tool for learning basic CS fundamentals; you get a very direct feeling for how CPUs work, how data structures can be implemented, and why they behave the way they do. I wouldn't recommend assembly for serious programming, but for getting an understanding of the fundamentals, it's hard to beat.

Re:Linux x86 assembly?

[perky]

On that same note, I consider that as one of the better arguments against OO code - It simply does not map well to real-world CPUs, thus introducing inefficiencies in the translation to something the CPU does handle natively

maxim: cycles are cheap, people are expensive. For the *vast majority* of software it is significantly better value to design and build a well architected OO solution than to optimise for performance in languages and methodologies that are more difficult to implement and maintain. Who cares if it's not very efficient - it'll run twice as fast in 18 months, and will be a lot cheaper to change when the client figures out what the actually wanted in the first place. But I guess you already knew that.

Computer Scientists aren't programmers

[smoon]

The problem is that computer scientists don't make good programmers and vice-versa. If you're good with code and hunker down to write lots of programs, then you tend to clash with the all-theory-no-code camp that delights in big-O notation and graph theory. Of course there is a lot of middle ground, but in general the PHd professor types that staff CompSci departments I've been in tend to have stopped learning about computers as soon as they finished their doctorate and instead concentrate on internecine politics, incomprehensible papers, and teaching the occaisional class (leaving most of that to T.A.'s who actually teach the class and understand how to compile programs).

Meanwhile the coder types graduate with a B.S. or maybe a masters then go into commercial development shops and crank out code, forgetting as much as they can about red-black trees and other subtle CompSci concepts.

So if you want to crank out programmers, then assembly is probably a good thing. God knows I learned a lot from the assembly classes I took.

If you're trying to scare students away then assembly is also a good tactic. Nothing like a good hex dump to get some non CompSci students eyes to glaze over. Sort of like making people take Biology or Physics, but instead of teaching about cells and newtonian motion, jump right into the finer points of quantum mechanics or amino acid chemistry.

On the other hand, for 2nd year CompSci students, Assembly is probably a good thing to get out of the way. It really sucks, for example to take economics for 4 years only to learn at the end "just kidding, reality is too complex to model so these are all just gross oversimplifications." Sort of like thinking programming == Java then finding out how it all _really_ works.

Re:Linux x86 assembly?

[texaport]

Assembly has little to nothing to do with either programming or computer science anymore. Computer science (IMHO) deals with the study of software engineering and algorithms

If it truly is a science, then someone who finishes a Bachelors and Masters program in Computer Science had better be capable of contributing to the advancement of this field.

This could be through the development of new languages, in which case I hope they know a thing or two about assembly in the first place.

Otherwise, a couple of Computer Science degrees would simply mean someone is a techno-wonk, a professional student, or just a technician rather than a professional engineer/scientist.

--
Disclaimer: 90% of the programmers out there do not
need a Computer Science degree, and 90% of the jobs
out there for developers don't need CS graduates