Linus Torvalds he gave his opinion on assembly

[clark_hobby]

...

[Black_Fox]

Working link: https://www.simple-talk.com/opinion/gee ... -torvalds/

[Reactionist]

That's his opinion on C, not assembly. And there is a basic difference between the words "need to", "have to", "should", and "must" that the Google Translator fails to convey for non-English speakers. You don't "need to" know assembly to be able to scratch a few lines in C but you'd better do. You don't "need to" know C to be able to place a couple of controls on a VB form and click "Run" but you'd better do. You must know the ABC to be able to compose poetry or all your lifetime artwork will amount to rock painting.

Is that clear this time, mr.waretrue?

[hbelusca]

Heh guys you know what??....
... I don't give a clue on what Linus could think about one subject or another one.

[gamax92]

I kinda agree with Reactionist at this point, why don't I just make a thread that goes like this:

In this thread he gave his opinion on assembly :
" Robert Gadzerfraud says that unless you are working on a 8086 or bootstrapping an OS, that assembly is not useful."

What do you think about this answer?

And it would be the same thing that clark_hobby/monsieur/Françai S/mr.waretrue/Jorge Monsieur/assembler/romapera15 writes.
All hes been doing is dumping the exact same message onto every forum, groups, and mail lists. Why is he still here?

[Z98]

Because he hasn't outright violated the no spamming rule.

[justincase]

Plus "clark_hobby" intelligibly responds to posts, so there's obviously a person behind the user account.

Mass cross-site-posting may be considered rude, but I don't see anything against it in the Code of Conduct, so (unless it gets added to said list of no-nos) it's not a banning offense. (right?)

[Webunny]

Plus "clark_hobby" intelligibly responds to posts, so there's obviously a person behind the user account.

Mass cross-site-posting may be considered rude, but I don't see anything against it in the Code of Conduct, so (unless it gets added to said list of no-nos) it's not a banning offense. (right?)

I agree with justincase. The parent poster might be an attention-seeker or a troll or whatever, but it's not really spam and it's no bot. From the standpoint of free speech, one can find it annoying or uninteresting (as hbelusca indicated), but then one simply can decide not to read it. Now-one forces anyone to read or respond to it, and while I personally find the opinion of Torvalds mostly worth reading on itself - he has proven himself after all, and he's no idiot in IT matters - in this particular instance I'm currently not really that interested enough into the question 'what you think of it?' to respond.

But, he's not doing anything of actual wrongdoing, even if he posts under different nicks in different threads. Just ignore it if you don't like it. That's what I do with posts that don't interest me.

People around here are much to short tempered with posts and posters; always asking for a ban or lockdown or asking not to do this or that. Jeez. Using an expletive: shouldn't be allowed! Posting the same uninteresting post: shouldn't be allowed! Having a side-discussion: can't be allowed! Using a wrong or short form of a self-invented nickname: can't be allowed!

Lighten up, people. It's a forum. People of all sorts come here, with all sorts of ideas, and all sorts of interests (though presumably ROS is one of them ), who talk with a varying degree of intellectual level and in different languages and who have different kinds of cultures. Without a high degree of tolerance, thus, you get nowhere. Adding rule after rule is no solution. Let it be, and just ignore it, if you're annoyed by it. That's all that is needed.

[Aeneas]

Language discussions are fun, no matter what the OP intended, so I'll chime in.

I actually think one should learn Scheme (rather than Common Lisp, by the way; and you might as well skip the current continuation esoterics in Scheme) and Prolog (knowledge about lists and elementary arithmetic may as well be the end - this "define your own operators and own language"-blabla of some Prolog books is not necessary).

I never quite got why that language of finicky loops and pointer nonsense is so overhyped. That Heartbleed desaster recently was due to using C. Maybe because it is so unbearably hard to achieve in C WHATSOVER, so when you say, "I wrote it in C" your chest can swell with pride as if you were saying, "I did it in Brainfuck".

[Reactionist]

I never quite got why that language of finicky loops and pointer nonsense is so overhyped. That Heartbleed desaster recently was due to using C. Maybe because it is so unbearably hard to achieve in C WHATSOVER, so when you say, "I wrote it in C" your chest can swell with pride as if you were saying, "I did it in Brainfuck".

If you don't know, then I will tell you why. That's simply because there's not a single implementation of C written in Scheme but there are dozens if not hundreds of Scheme implementations written in C. The most recent implementation of Scheme is written in BASIC. I wouldn't be surprised if the next one will be, if not already is, written in Brainfuck. Just for the hell of it.

There's too much ado about nothing here. It's the same old "problem" of an egg and a hen. C++ is a hen to many contemporary HLL eggs (and even to ROS, for that matter). C is a hen to C++. Macro assembly is a hen to C. This is just the way things are, and you simply can't do anything about it, so please don't mislead youngsters and clark_hobby/monsieur/Françai S/mr.waretrue/Jorge Monsieur/assembler/romapera15's kindred with such spells of unjustified, if not ignorant, bravery.