On 07/03/18 12:09, mechanic wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 22:56:12 +0000, Vir Campestris wrote:

On 04/03/2018 18:39, mechanic wrote:
things have moved on from wading through manuals on assembly.

Even when I was working full time in assembler that was never an issue.
In fact I think I look language things up more often now - C++ is a
_lot_ more complex than any assembler.


Didn't you have difficulty in creating OO structures in assembly?

Not at all.

The point about assembler and C is that you CAN create effective OO units.

But you are not forced to.


The easiest way is to use the lexical constructs (in C anyway) to
isolate OO functionality into one file. I.e use of static global
variables and static function names restricts their access to within
that file only. The file becomes the 'object'.

C is virtually macro assembler anyway, so there is little point going to
pure assembler unless you need hardware access or to do some weird stuff
with mode switches etc that are outside the scope of the C language



That level of complexity is hidden in modern development languages,
which is part of their purpose of course. Things have moved on,and
C++is looking a bit ancient. This is progress, a concept denied by
the OP in this sub-thread. Stories about experiences in various
shops forty years ago refute this view.


Actually since OOP code has got worse, slower and more buggy.

Becauses its written by idiots who think they dont need to understand
hardware, memory or instruction cycoles.

Bcak in et day peole like you wer touting the merits of Pascal. Today no
one uses it, or Modula II.

But C and assembler march on.


--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.