• Naich@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    105
    ·
    24 days ago

    I have programmed by looking up op codes in a table on a sheet of paper and entering the hex codes into an EPROM programmer.

      • Naich@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        24 days ago

        Fucking ancient. This was for a Z80 based system using discreet logic for addressing and IO, constructed on a wire-wrapped board.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 days ago

      If you want some modern day fun with this, try the Zachtronics programming games; TIS-100, Shenzhen I/O, and Exapunks.

      Or, my personal favorite I only discovered somewhat recently, try Turing Complete. You start by designing all your logic gates from just a negate gate IIRC. You eventually build up an ALU and everything else you need and then create your own computer. Then you define your own assembly language and have to write programs in your assembly language that run on the computer you’ve designed to complete different tasks. It’s a highly underrated game, although it takes a certain type of person to enjoy.

      • Zangoose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        21 days ago

        Another interesting low-level interpreter/emulated system to look into for anyone else trying to get started with this type of thing is the CHIP-8! It’s a pretty basic 8/16-bit instruction set (there are 35 opcodes, the instructions themselves are mostly simple) and there are tons of detailed guides on making one and writing roms for them.

      • WldFyre@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        23 days ago

        Turing Complete looks really interesting! How polished is it? Just looked it up and saw it was in early access

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          23 days ago

          I would say it’s very polished. It does everything you’d expect and has some nice QoL features. There was work on a big update that’d improve performance and things, but the last information about that was from Aug of last year as far as I can tell. That’s not a big deal though. The game works fine without it.

    • notabot@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      24 days ago

      Ah, memories. That was me on a Spectrum. It’s all fun and games until you forget to save (to tape) and your code hangs the machine, losing everything.

    • GenosseFlosse@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      23 days ago

      When I was young, we didn’t have hex codes, we only had 1 and 0s. One time we where all out of 1s, and I had to code a whole Database system with only 0s!

          • Victor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            26
            ·
            24 days ago

            Exactly. For every level of abstraction, the abstractor is the high level and the abstractee is the lower level. Those aren’t real words perhaps, but you get what I’m saying. It’s all relative along the chain of abstraction.

            • Ziglin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              23 days ago

              Is it a chain though? I think it’s more of a branching network that (almost?) always is stopped at quantum physics and it’s theories or some form philosophy.

              • Victor@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                23 days ago

                My mental model of it is a chain, yes. But you can define it however you like. It’s just steps in some direction.

                Maybe a cake would suit someone the best.

        • Lmaydev@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          21 days ago

          It’s higher than machine code. It’s degrees of highness. Any abstraction technically makes it high level.

          • abbadon420@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            21 days ago

            It’s not really abstraction though. It is more like syntactic sugar. In stead of 1000111011 you say ADD, but it is still the exact same thing. There is no functional, prgrammatical benefit of one over the other. It’s just that asm is readable by humans.

            At least thats as far as I understand asm. I haven’t gone beyond NandToTetris

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      23 days ago

      I would argue they don’t know what that means really. Assembly is pretty much a mapping of words to machine code. It’s just a way to make machine code easier to read. It doesn’t actually change how it works.

      A compiler re-arranges and modifies things so what you write isn’t the same as the final program that is created. With assembly it is. It’s not really an abstraction, but a translation. It doesn’t move you further from the machine, it only makes it so you’re speaking the same language.

    • azdle@news.idlestate.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      64
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      24 days ago

      C was originally created as a “high-level” language, being more abstract (aka high-level) than the other languages at the time. But now it’s basically considered very slightly more abstract than machine code when compared to the much higher level high-level languages we have today.

      • Corbin@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        24 days ago

        Other way around, actually; C was one of several languages proposed to model UNIX without having to write assembly on every line, and has steadily increased in abstraction. Today, C is specified relative to a high-level abstract machine and doesn’t really resemble any modern processing units’ capabilities.

        Incidentally, coming to understand this is precisely what the OP meme is about.

      • Ziglin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        23 days ago

        I’d say much more highly abstracted than necessarily better (I know plenty of people who despise js and wouldn’t call it better).

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      24 days ago

      To add on to @azdle@news.idlestate.org 's comment, “High Level” in terms of programming languages means further away from how the computer processes things and “Low Level” means very similar to how machines process things. For example, binary and hexadecimal (16 bit) machine code such as “assembly language” are both low level.

      Imagine if program interpreters were building blocks, then 6 layers of abstraction would be very tall or higher level.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        23 days ago

        This is pedantic, but assembly languages get “assembled” to machine code. This is somewhat similar to higher level languages being “compiled,” which eventually becomes assembly which gets assembled. The major reason why these are different is because a compiler changes the structure of the code. Assembly is a direct mapping to instructions. It just converts the text into machine code directly, which is why it’s easy to go from machine code to assembly but decompiling doesn’t give you identical results to the original source code.

        Also, binary and hexadecimal are just different ways to view the same binary data and aren’t different things. There is only “machine code” which is a type of binary data but you can view binary with any arbitrary base, though obviously powers of 2 work better.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          23 days ago

          Assembly is a direct mapping to instructions. It just converts the text into machine code directly,

          Kinda… yes and no? At least with x86 there’s still things like encoding selection going on, there’s not a 1:1 mapping between assembly syntax and opcodes.

          Also assemblers, at least those meant for human consumption (mostly nasm nowadays) tend to have powerful macro systems. That’s not assembly as such, of course.

          But I think your “a compiler changes the structure of the code” thing is spot-on, an assembler will not reorder instructions, it won’t do dead code elimination, but I think it’s not really out of scope of an assembler to be able to do those things – compilers weren’t doing them for the longest time, either.

          I think a clearer division would be that compilers deal with two sets of semantics: That of the source language, and that of the CPU. The CPU semantics don’t say things like “result after overflow is undefined”, that’s C speaking, and compilers can use those differences to do all kind of shennanigans. With assemblers there’s no such translation between different language semantics, it’s always the CPU semantics.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            23 days ago

            I don’t think I said assembly is abstracted. It’s pretty much just a translation.

            Hexidecimal isn’t binary. They’re both just ways to represent numbers. A number displayed in hexadecimal and binary are the same number even though they look different. FF(base 16) = 1111 1111(base 2) = 255(base 10). They’re all identical.

  • IsoSpandy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    23 days ago

    When I learnt programming (back in early 2000s) the textbook said C is a high level 3rd generation language with 4th gen languages being something higher (I don’t remember what examples were given specifically). This is back when the java applets and action script for flash were the hot things. How I miss the days without the world being cursed by JS.

    • MonkderDritte@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      23 days ago

      I think C was 2nd, 3. is Java and Python, 4 SQL and 5th would be some hypothetical AI instruction language?

      • Aux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        23 days ago

        1st level is direct binary code as was done with punch cards. Assembly language is a 2nd level language. C is a level above, thus it’s level 3.

          • Aux@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            22 days ago

            I would also like to add some of the higher level features available in most assembly languages.

            1. Memory management. You can define variables, for example, a string one containing “Hello, world!” and the compiler will correctly allocate required memory and you don’t need to know its address while writing the code, you just reference the variable.
            2. Code labels. If you want to do a conditional or unconditional jump, you need to know the address of the code you want to reach. But, obviously, every change you make to your code base will change the memory layout of your binary. Asembly provides code labels. You can think of them like function names.
            3. Assembly allows you to reference 3rd party libraries without knowing exact function entry addresses. You just use function names like you would with C or any other language.

            Modern assembly languages have even more higher level features, like macros support. And some are even hardware agnostic, like intermediate representation assembly language used in LLVM.

      • mkwt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        22 days ago

        When the gp’s book says that C is a third generation language: I would guess the first generation is Fortran and the second generation contains ALGOL and BCPL. C was heavily influenced by BCPL. (get it? C comes after B)

    • Lmaydev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 days ago

      Java applets and flash were an absolute security nightmare of the highest degree.

      You were just running applications on your computer.

      If you had to download and run an application on your computer to view a website now people would lose their minds (and rightly so)

  • umbraroze@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    23 days ago

    I mean, C is a high level language? Now, sure, C isn’t a super expressive language and every C statement compiles to very few assembly instructions comparatively speaking, but it has a whole lot of stuff that assembly doesn’t have. Like nice loops and other control structures and such, and not worry about which processor registers are used.

  • 30p87@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    24 days ago

    In the modern world it’s completely subjective.
    The lowest-level language is probably ASM/machine code, as many people at least edit that regularly, and the highest-level would be LLMs. They are the shittiest way to program, yes, but technically you just enter instructions and the LLM outputs eg. Python, which is then compiled to bytecode and run. Similar to how eg. Java works. And that’s the subjective part; many people (me included) don’t use LLMs as the only way to program, or only use them for convenience and some help, therefore the highest level language is probably either some drag-and-drop UI stuff (like scratch), or Python/JS. And the lowest level is either C/C++ (because “no one uses ASM anyway”), or straight up machine code.

    • almost1337@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      24 days ago

      I’m pretty sure Pepe was only temporarily coopted by the far rights, and has since been reclaimed.

        • Agent641@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          28
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          24 days ago

          You’re right. Hey lemmy, lets all accommodate this one guys specific likes and dislikes so he doesn’t get his lil feels hurt!

          • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            16
            ·
            23 days ago

            Lmao, what a wild assumption that they could take whatever icons they like, with no basis in reality.

            • jwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              23 days ago

              Lmao, what a wild assumption that they could take whatever icons they like, with no basis in reality.

              that’s…. exactly what they do buddy. you don’t seem the type to care for counter-examples so i won’t even try and list any of the many, many fucking instances of this happening irl

                • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  23 days ago

                  Degenerate, 88, 14, the Roman salute, multiple names, the fascista, shaven heads, lighting motifs, runic symbols.

                  That’s just what I came up with off the top of my head. The other person is right, and I say we should reclaim every symbol because those fuckers shouldn’t be allowed to call anything their own or have anything to ralley around or identify each other with. The only symbol I’m aware of that the made was the black sun which is itself simply the ss symbol repeated around a circle, which itself is an appropriated rune.

                  Reclaim every symbol.

        • Shampiss@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          24 days ago

          An icon represents what the people think it represents.

          An icon can also have different meanings to different people. It’s ok if you don’t like it. But I don’t think it’s fair to say that the majority of people that use or share Pepe are from one specific ideological group

        • kewjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          24 days ago

          the swastika was originally a religious icon used and still used in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jianism, i wouldn’t consider them Nazis… Context matters

          • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            28
            ·
            24 days ago

            Imagine unironically saying we should normalize nazi swastikas. If that’s not what it takes for you to reevaluate your stance, then you’re a lost cause.

            • kewjo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              24 days ago

              the symbol predates Germany, initial findings date it back to 3300-1300 BC. you’re telling me all historical religious symbols in Asian countries should wiped of the icon because of Nazis misappropriating their symbol? you would literally deface ancient sites that predate nazis by thousands of years because you can only see it as a symbol of hate?

              you can use context clues such as actual hate speech, nazi slogans and genocide to distinguish those that are actually racist. the whole point of nazism is to erase culture and replace it with only the “one true race”. by allowing nazis and white supremacists to appropriate symbols you’re actively giving them power.

              • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                14
                ·
                edit-2
                24 days ago

                So then, you think Nazi Swastikas without context should be allowed without any repercussions. I saw your first comment, I don’t see why you think using more words to say the same thing would make it any different.

                Here are some questions: How does punishing nazis for using symbols of hate and intolerance empower them? How does allowing them to do so freely harm them in contrast?

                You do not need to use a nazi swastika. A world where they are not allowed in public is a world where people feel safe and comfortable. Just as you do not need to use the frog. The frog is unimportant and only continues to exist because people like you fight for it.

                • kewjo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  23 days ago

                  literally my first comment said context matters. if you see an image with hate speech maybe its the speech that you should pay attention to.

                • barsoap@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  23 days ago

                  So then, you think Nazi Swastikas without context should be allowed without any repercussions.

                  That’s incoherent. “Nazi swastika” and “without context” doesn’t mesh because “Nazi” is a context for “swastika”.

                  That aside, I’m going to take German law as an example: No, non-nazi swastikas are very much not outlawed. You can see them on stray Hindu temples or shrines in the country, for example. “Without” context they’re generally assumed to be Nazi ones over here because historical context, also, only Nazis draw random swastikas over here. You also see ones broken in pieces getting thrown in the trash or in a crossed-out circle, those come from the Antifa side.

                  Both the Hindu and Antifa uses are legal, the Nazi ones aren’t. That’s because German law doesn’t outlaw the swastika as such, it outlaws “using symbols of unconstitutional or outlawed organisations in a manner suitable to further their aims”. A Nazi painting a Swastika on a Jewish gravestone is considered furthering the aims of the NSDAP, which had the swastika as their logo. A Hindu chiselling a swastika into their gravestone is a completely different matter. (Do Hindus use gravestones? Anyway doesn’t matter it’s a hypothetical example).

                  In another country, where the historical context is different, those “without” context swastikas won’t be interpreted the same as in Germany. So even under German law those would arguably be legal, there.

        • almost1337@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          24 days ago

          Almost every meme template has been used to make alt-right nonsense, do we just abandon any symbol they pick up for their misdeeds? Or do we push back and refuse to allow them that kind of control over our culture?

          • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            33
            ·
            24 days ago

            Very few and far between were exclusive to the right. Pepe was. It started as theirs and continued to be theirs for a long time, in my opinion still continues to be theirs. You few fighting for the symbol’s continued use in good faith (if you are) are not the majority.

              • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                20
                ·
                24 days ago

                It started as a french cartoon and got coopted into the feelsbadman meme format in 2009 and then skyrocketed in popularity and mainstream use in 2015-2016 by pro-trump conservatives.

                Even if it were present in every single greentext like some sort of bizarre requirement, it still would have more use by nazis and propogandists than anyone else.