Schol-R-LEA wrote:
manhobby wrote:
@Schol-R-LEA
Andrew Tanenbaum lied?
For all intents and purposes, no. He may not have been literally accurate, as there is no way to actually know for certain (and there are always wingnuts, specialists, and hobbyists who do things like that anyway), but the numbers are so small that they are negligible. His statement was basically accurate, because for anyone who isn't doing so either for fun or for some exceeding specialized purpose (as is the case for DavidCooper), programming in machine language - or even doing extensive programming in assembly language, for things that don't need it - is
stupid.
To repeat something I've said before: modern programming is all about increasing levels of abstraction. Machine code has no abstraction at all, and bare assembly language (i.e., without any kind of macros or other structuring) has only minimal abstraction. Using either of them means discarding nearly everything we've learned in sixty years' of improvements in the methods of program development and software engineering.
I have to second the question which Zaval, and several others, have already asked: what are you trying to accomplish by asking these questions? We've already told you that this is a dead end with regards to professional programming. If you want to learn machine code or assembly language programming out of curiosity or as a hobby, go ahead and do it (Hell, there are probably some here who would help you with that, and there several more specialized message boards where they certainly would), but there is no reason for you to be belaboring this if you intent is to find work.
Schol-R-LEA, Brendan, simeonz, please, answer the following questions:
Wich are the high level programming languages that has reason to learn to find job?
Wich are the high level programming languages that has no reason to learn to find job?
Schol-R-LEA, Brendan, simeonz, you will answer this questions?