Assembly was how you coded many applications back in the 1970s and into 1980s, and tasks such as displaying output onto a serial terminal console could require as much as fifty lines of assembler on some systems.
On a "nicer-architecture" box and OS and while still coding assembler, it was still ten or so lines of assembler with a system call for the core of the output.
Why assembler? Well, you either didn't have a higher-level language around, or a C or Fortran compiler could cost you US$5,000 for a license, and US$36,000 for a memory upgrade from 4 to 8 megabytes.
Modern environments and tools are vastly more capable. And cheaper. And the tasks and applications that are now ubiquitous are massively more advanced. Debugging state by reading the front-panel accumulator lights (because you couldn't get the debugger to work) Stinks Large.
Would I trade knowing assembler? Donno. Probably. I just don't code assembler that much any more. Modern languages are vastly more capable. What you can do now with a couple-dozen lines of Objective C or Ruby code (and all the underpinnings) is massive in comparison.
On a "nicer-architecture" box and OS and while still coding assembler, it was still ten or so lines of assembler with a system call for the core of the output.
Why assembler? Well, you either didn't have a higher-level language around, or a C or Fortran compiler could cost you US$5,000 for a license, and US$36,000 for a memory upgrade from 4 to 8 megabytes.
Modern environments and tools are vastly more capable. And cheaper. And the tasks and applications that are now ubiquitous are massively more advanced. Debugging state by reading the front-panel accumulator lights (because you couldn't get the debugger to work) Stinks Large.
Would I trade knowing assembler? Donno. Probably. I just don't code assembler that much any more. Modern languages are vastly more capable. What you can do now with a couple-dozen lines of Objective C or Ruby code (and all the underpinnings) is massive in comparison.