当你用汇编语言写作时，你不必只写指令代码。您可以使用宏、过程和您自己的约定来进行各种抽象，使程序更模块化、更可维护、更易于阅读。

因此，您基本上是在说，通过熟练地使用复杂的汇编程序，您可以使ASM代码越来越接近C(或者您自己发明的另一种低级语言)，直到最终您的工作效率与C程序员一样高。

这是否回答了你的问题?: -)

我并不是在无所事事地说:我已经使用这样的汇编器和系统进行了编程。更好的是，汇编程序可以以虚拟处理器为目标，并且一个单独的翻译程序可以为目标平台编译汇编程序的输出。与LLVM的IF很相似，但其早期形式比它早了大约10年。因此，有了可移植性，再加上为特定目标汇编器编写例程的能力，以提高效率。

Writing using that assembler was about as productive as C, and with by comparison with GCC-3 (which was around by the time I was involved) the assembler/translator produced code that was roughly as fast and usually smaller. Size was really important, and the company had few programmers and was willing to teach new hires a new language before they could do anything useful. And we had the back-up that people who didn't know the assembler (e.g. customers) could write C and compile it for the same virtual processor, using the same calling convention and so on, so that it interfaced neatly. So it felt like a marginal win.

这是在开发汇编程序技术、库等方面花费了许多人多年的工作。不可否认的是，其中大部分都是为了使其可移植，如果它只针对一种架构，那么所有唱歌所有跳舞的汇编器就会容易得多。

总而言之:你可能不喜欢C语言，但这并不意味着使用C语言的努力就比想出更好的东西的努力更大。

你好，我是一个编译器。

I just scanned thousands of lines of code while you were reading this sentence. I browsed through millions of possibilities of optimizing a single line of yours using hundreds of different optimization techniques based on a vast amount of academic research that you would spend years getting at. I won't feel any embarrassment, not even a slight ick, when I convert a three-line loop to thousands of instructions just to make it faster. I have no shame to go to great lengths of optimization or to do the dirtiest tricks. And if you don't want me to, maybe for a day or two, I'll behave and do it the way you like. I can transform the methods I'm using whenever you want, without even changing a single line of your code. I can even show you how your code would look in assembly, on different processor architectures and different operating systems and in different assembly conventions if you'd like. Yes, all in seconds. Because, you know, I can; and you know, you can't.

附言:哦，顺便说一下，你没有使用你写的一半代码。我帮了你一个忙，把它扔了。

C是一个宏汇编器!这是最好的一个!

它可以做几乎所有汇编程序可以做的事情，它是可移植的，在大多数极少数情况下，当它不能做一些事情时，你仍然可以使用嵌入式汇编代码。这就只留下了一小部分程序，你绝对需要用汇编来编写，而且只需要汇编。

更高层次的抽象和可移植性使大多数人更值得用c语言编写系统软件。尽管你现在可能不需要可移植性，但如果你在编写某个程序上投入了大量的时间和金钱，你可能不想把自己限制在将来可以使用它的地方。

跟我们不再去外面厕所的原因一样，也跟我们不再说拉丁语和阿拉姆语的原因一样。

技术的出现使事情变得更容易，更容易获得。

编辑——为了不冒犯别人，我删除了某些词语。

合理水平的汇编能力是一项有用的技能，特别是当您从事任何类型的系统级或嵌入式编程时，这并不是因为您必须编写那么多汇编程序，而是因为有时了解盒子的实际功能非常重要。如果您对汇编程序的概念和问题没有低级的理解，这可能会非常困难。

然而，至于在汇编器中实际编写大量代码，有几个原因导致它做得不多。

There's simply no (almost) need. Except for something like the very early system initialization and perhaps a few assembler fragments hidden in C functions or macros, all very low-level code that might once have been written in assembler can be written in C or C++ with no difficulty. Code in higher-level languages (even C and C++) condenses functionality into far fewer lines, and there is considerable research showing that the number of bugs correlates with the number of lines of source code. Ie, the same problem, solved in assembler and C, will have more bugs in assembler simply because its longer. The same argument motivates the move to higher level languages such as Perl, Python, etc. Writing in assembler, you have to deal with every single aspect of the problem, from detailed memory layout, instruction selection, algorithm choices, stack management, etc. Higher level languages take all this away from you, which is why are so much denser in terms of LOC.

从本质上讲，以上所有内容都与汇编程序与C或其他语言中可用的抽象级别有关。汇编程序迫使您自己制作所有的抽象，并通过您自己的自律来维护它们，而任何中级语言，如C，特别是高级语言，都可以为您提供开箱即用的抽象，以及相对容易地创建新抽象的能力。

随着汇编变得越来越不常见，出现了一个恶性循环:随着高级语言的成熟，汇编语言指令集的构建越来越少地是为了方便程序员，而更多地是为了方便编译器。

So now, realistically, it may be very hard to make the right decisions on, say, which registers you should use or which instructions are slightly more efficient. Compilers can use heuristics to figure out which tradeoffs are likely to have the best payoff. We can probably think through smaller problems and find local optimizations that might beat our now pretty sophisticated compilers, but odds are that in the average case, a good compiler will do a better job on the first try than a good programmer probably will. Eventually, like John Henry, we might beat the machine, but we might seriously burn ourselves out getting there.

Our problems are also now quite different. In 1986 I was trying to figure out how to get a little more speed out of small programs that involved putting a few hundred pixels on the screen; I wanted the animation to be less jerky. A fair case for assembly language. Now I'm trying to figure out how to represent abstractions around contract language and servicer policy for mortgages, and I'd rather read something that looks close to the language that the business folks speak. Unlike LISP macros, Assembly macros don't enforce much in the way of rules, so even though you might be able to get something reasonably close to a DSL in a good assembler, it'll be prone to all sorts of quirks that won't cause me problems if I wrote the same code in Ruby, Boo, Lisp, C# or even F#.

如果您的问题很容易用高效的汇编语言来表达，那么您的能力就更强了。