ALGOLites killed computing. You can thank every stupid thing, including LLMs, to ALGOL-like languages like C "winning" in the market. We have lost billions of dollars from memory bugs because the market chose shitty cheap "fast" processors than ran C with no hardware garbage collection or bounds checking. Everything being a web browser is just a shitty recreation of the user and development experience that Lisp and Smalltalk machines gave you. We are currently spending trillions to make LLMs that write boilerplate code for shitty languages without proper metaprogramming.
>>109757194skill issue. git gud faggot.
We should be using basic with assy, still. Do your program logic in basic, and anything too slow you create an assy routine for and then call and return from it.
>>109757194>languages like C "winning"SNOBOL4 should have won.
>>109757321Can LLMs even write assembly?
>>109758206Yes but they're unbelievably terrible at it.
>>109758434somebody vibe coded a c64 demo for the big demo party x this year just as a joke
>>109758499BASIC only, and actually still needing human intervention extensively.
>>109758545It still had raster bars and a wireframe cube, the works, even a very gay SID tune.
>>109758555But the question was specifically about assembly. The answer is no.Of course it can do BASIC, tons of data out there. Copy-pasting existing code isn't hard for LLMs.
>You can blame every stupid thing on ALGOlites I fail to see how LLMs can be blamed on ALGOL like languages winning the market place of ideas. The theory for LLMs would have still been discovered even if languages like lisp had won the market place. The only difference is that they'd be programmed in LISP or small talk instead. >Hardware garbage collection and bounds checking would be a good thing No it'd be a waste of dye space. Bounds checking should be shunted to the language and solved in software not hardware. Why create specific registers or hardware for something that is just a comparison? A well designed compiler can solve that.>Everything being a web browser is just what LISP would have given you No, its a consequence of most languages being bad at representing and compiling documents. No one wants to build structs to pass as an argument to some library to get something that is close to what they wanted. They want an expressive design language that allows them to express what they want simply in a language they understand. >Lisp is that language No, if lisp had won people would be stuck building their own DSL for graphics or just copying another standard design language that everyone knew. It'd also probably run at a similar speed as a browser as everything would be running on a JIT. >Without proper metaprogramming Show me one thing that lisp can do that can't be done in another language that is nontrivial.
>>109758575C64 has timing concerns, zero page, you can get the advanced programming guide and it explains every detail. Then you have your instructions and some time to do things.It could be trained to produce assembly code but it would probably be its own effort, I bet they mostly want it to rewrite C into Rust or something mundane. So they probably didn't focus on that.>>109758615>Show me one thing that lisp can do that can't be done in another language that is nontrivial.macros and self-modifying code
>>109758628Opus 5 can spit out perfect PS2 vector unit assembler after feeding it the whole sony manual. You just have to be specific, like turn this shitty scalar C function into vector code for processor X.
>>109758628>Macros Plenty of languages have macros. >Self modifying code Can you imagine the amount of bugs that would have produced if we had gone down that route? People forget, but you used to be able to do that with C before they locked it down because of how much of a security issue it was. Self modifying code is just a bad idea and I have never seen it executed for anything besides mental masturbation and exploits.
>>109758643>it was real in my dreams
>>109758674"Macros" in other languages aren't macros, they're hacks.We HAVE gone the self-modifying code route and it did not result in more bugs at all. It was in fact a succint and powerful way to implement some features that therefore resulted in LESS bugs. Then W^X happened.
>>109758691>Then W^X happened for no reason at all It happened because the ability to write to executing memory was extremely exploitable, caused program crashes and risked corrupting or crashing the OS. There's a reason that every major OS implemented it. It did result in more bugs and less stability and that's why they patched it out.
>>109757194C is not algol like, it has some inspiration based on it but that is it. that is a claim made to give some pedigree to C when it was a hacked together mess from the startpascal family is algol like
>>109757194There has never been and never will be a garbage collected language that isn't garbage.
>>109758710By this logic, we should also disable javascript everywhere. Yet here we are.You are retarded.
>>109757194no, retards killed computing. retards like (You) and all the other people in this thread.
>>109758615Because ALGOLites are so bad at metaprogramming you have stochastic blackbox to vomit boilerplate for you
>>109758926>Disable JavaScript Javascript runs in a VM or in sandboxed memory because it is a huge risk. They practically have to throw the sink at it to make it safe to use. >>109758980>Its cause of ALGOLites I recall lisp originally being the language of AI. Do you think they'd stop working on that endeavor if we hadn't embraced ALGOL languages? You'd just have a stochastic black box vomiting up parentheses for you.
>>109761220So you're tech illiterate, got it.
>>109761234>ALGOlites vs lispggers >Valid arguments >historical references >Lispggers >Ad hominems>Barely any actually useful software Keep doing theory masturbation in academia while people who actually get shit done work.
>>109761306Whatever helps you sleep at night while you brainrot with your favorite t*kt*k infl*encer.
>>109761320>T*KT*kI work in tech, why would I willingly install Chinese spyware?
>>109757210
Symbolics was ahead of the time with Genera OSLisp should've won
>>109761350you are not on the right of the bell curve my nigga
>>109763722I tested very much right of the bell curve.
>>109763733if it helps you sleep at night, nothing wrong with "identifying" as "highly intelligent"
>>109763974No. Please don't pretend to be smart when you're not.
>>109757194>hardware garbage collection>mfw>or bounds checkingWe literally have this. It's just at the page level rather than per byte, because it's way too expensive to do it per byte. Intel tried and failed.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_MPX
>>109757194You can't be more wrong, pal. The co-creator of Algol 68 (Niklaus Wirth) wrote this about C and UNIXMemory bug can be solved by static analysis, we know this since the 80s (linear types). https://ia600801.us.archive.org/16/items/nonzen-cs-papers-bucket0/SHA256E-s176260--22d09c26e04b8c014be0759e15f49545acefaa5a801395ad4f13f11fafcd408d.pdf
>>109758854Rust is garbage collected though
>>109766062No though
>>109766062And it's garbage.>>109767877Optional reference counting.
>>109769276>OptionalSo it's not garbage collected.Boehm GC exists. Is C garbage collected?
>>109767877Reference counting is GC. Really shitty GC, but GC nonetheless.>>109769367Yes. Why is this even a question?
>>109769793Name a non-garbage collected language. You can't.
>>109769824It's easy to write a complex C program that doesn't use Boehm-GC. Good luck writing a Rust program that doesn't do RC somewhere in one of its crates.
>>109769390It's really a damn shame that IBM kept PL/1 proprietary. Really lovely language.
>>109769895>moving the goalpost so fast there's a sonic boom
>>109769933>noooo you can't just leave off -lgc that's moving the heckin goalpostslol. lmao, even.
>>109770020I accept your tranny surrender
