As an assembly language guru, you might appreciate my 32-bit operating system, written entirely in assembly:
https://github.com/RickCHodgin/libsf-full/tree/master/_exodus

I named it Exodus before I was a Christian. I called it that name back then because I was hoping it would ultimately prove to spark a "mass departure from evil (Microsoft)".

You might appreciate most the 32-bit debugger. I wrote it in a TINY memory model so I could compile it as both an x86 real-mode debugger, and a protected mode debugger. You'll see the port of it in there somewhere for the real-mode version. I loaded this onto the floppy disk at boot and then was able to use my debugger to step through the 512-byte boot sector. Was really nice.

Thank you for the kindness, Thomas. :-)



>Well stated Rick!
>
>My favorite language is C followed by C++ and C#. I spent a lot of time using Assembly, and also use a dozen other languages. You have to pick a language based upon the needs of the project. I would never use C or C++ for rapid application development. That would be a poor choice. But what would you use to get to the guts of the computer? :)
>
>I believe the reason I enjoy C the most is the way it makes you think. It is like a fun game and that is reason enough for me. C is very structured and I enjoy that. If I want to create a complex and mission critical application with time limits my favorite is Visual FoxPro, with a proper framework. If a company wants to pay me to use another language then that is fine too. Some companies insist upon what tools you will and will not use.
>
>If you limit the number of languages you use and do not appreciate what language to use for a specific purpose you limit your employment opportunities . I am sure that there are people that only use Version One of Basic and are very happy. After all that is where Bill Gates started. So be it! :)
>
>Remember that if you are a true supporter of Microsoft you will only use and endorse any version of Basic, regardless of the mission requirements. One must be loyal to the cause. Or should that be blind to reality? :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>There are fundamental mechanisms at work at the CPU level, which are still present today.
>>
>>C/C++ expose those mechanisms in a way that is assembly-language / machine code (opcode) neutral while providing a powerful mechanism to express complex ideas in human readable terms, yet at a level that operates very close to the physical capabilities of the CPU, memory, and device subsystem (ports).
>>
>>C/C++ allow complex, reusable, extensible code to be written for many platforms without regard to their CPU's machine code requirements. The C/C++ standards provide for that ability without the need for a virtual machine and all its inherent slowdowns (Java, .NET).
>>
>>C/C++ are still the domain of the most general purpose, fastest code, even today. Only hand-coded assembly beats it (but at the expense of about 15x as many labor hours to produce the same product, and the speedups are typically only a few percentage points).
>>
>>For most apps the level of performance C/C++ provides doesn't matter. Yet, for several it is absolutely essential. There would be no Java without C/C++. There would be no .NET without C/C++. There would be no [insert other high level language here] without C/C++ at somewhere fundamental to the tool chain.
>>
>>C/C++ have their place. The entire Linux kernel was written in C even (no C++ at all) and it still is today. Linux is used in every Android device, as is C/C++. And that's billions of computers worldwide. C/C++ is the true, fundamental backbone of Java VMs, as well as .NET. It remains a wholly integrated, absolutely essential, first tier player in every operating system toolkit. And GCC has created a FLOSS framework that allows the C/C++ standard to be ported to new CPUs in about a week's worth of work (modifying the templates used to produce machine code, yet without changing anything in the GCC compiler itself). This allows truly amazing ports where the GCC toolchain will continue to operate correctly, even on brand new CPUs.
>>
>>Certain developers have reasons to go into C/C++. Others do not. For some projects it makes no sense to go through the rigors of the lower-level abilities to attain what could be done in a higher level language with a much easier syntax. Other projects could not be done in any other way.
>>
>>C/C++ have their firm place. It's not for everybody.
>>
>>
>>
>>>My condolences. I did C/C++ for a few years and hated every minute of it. I'm convinced that the creators of C were on drugs. Seriously, computers should make things easier, not harder. Pointers to define strings? I shouldn't have to deal with that mess. The language and compiler should take care of those details for me. Different types of strings that aren't compatible? What a pain in the a$$. And don't get me started on pointers to pointers.