我现在正在comp组织学习汇编，虽然它很有趣，但它也非常低效。你必须在脑子里记住更多的细节才能让事情顺利进行，而且写同样的东西也会慢一些。例如，c++中一个简单的6行For循环可以等于18行或更多的汇编。

就我个人而言，学习硬件层面的工作方式非常有趣，它让我对计算的工作方式有了更多的了解。

除了其他人对可读性、可维护性、更短的代码从而更少的错误和更简单的回答之外，我还将添加一个额外的原因:

程序的速度。

Yes, in assembly you can hand tune your code to make use of every last cycle and make it as fast as is physically possible. However who has the time? If you write a not-completely-stupid C program, the compiler will do a really good job of optimizing for you. Probably making at least 95% of the optimizations you'd do by hand, without you having to worry about keeping track of any of it. There's definitely a 90/10 kind of rule here, where that last 5% of optimizations will end up taking up 95% of your time. So why bother?

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。

如果一个普通的生产程序有10万行代码，每一行大约有8-12条汇编指令，那就是100万条汇编指令。

即使您可以以相当快的速度手写所有这些代码(请记住，这是您必须编写的8倍代码)，如果您想更改某些功能会发生什么?从这100万条指令中理解你几周前写的东西简直是一场噩梦!没有模块，没有类，没有面向对象的设计，没有框架，什么都没有。即使是为最简单的事情编写的类似代码的数量最多也令人生畏。

此外，你不能像高级语言那样优化你的代码。例如，C语言执行了大量的优化，因为你描述了你的意图，不仅仅是你的代码，在汇编程序中你只写代码，汇编程序不能对你的代码执行任何值得注意的优化。你写的就是你得到的，相信我，你不可能可靠地优化100万条指令，你在写的时候不断地打补丁。

与高级语言相比，ASM的易读性很差，而且实际上难以维护。

此外，ASM开发人员比其他更流行的语言(如C)要少得多。

此外，如果您使用高级语言，并且有新的ASM指令可用(例如SSE)，您只需要更新您的编译器，您的旧代码就可以轻松使用新的指令。

如果下一个CPU有两倍多的寄存器呢?

这个问题的反义词是:编译器提供了什么功能?

我怀疑你能够/想要/应该比gcc -O3更好地优化你的ASM。

作为一名大部分时间都在嵌入式编程领域工作的开发人员，我认为汇编语言还远远没有成为一种死亡/过时的语言。有某种接近金属级别的编码(例如，在驱动程序中)有时不能用高级语言准确或有效地表达。我们几乎所有的硬件接口例程都是用汇编程序编写的。

That being said, this assembly code is wrapped such that it can be called from C code and is treated like a library. We don't write the entire program in assembly for many reasons. First and foremost is portability; our code base is used on several products that use different architectures and we want to maximize the amount of code that can be shared between them. Second is developer familiarity. Simply put, schools don't teach assembly like they used to, and our developers are far more productive in C than in assembly. Also, we have a wide variety of "extras" (things like libraries, debuggers, static analysis tools, etc) available for our C code that aren't available for assembly language code. Even if we wanted to write a pure-assembly program, we would not be able to because several critical hardware libraries are only available as C libs. In one sense, it's a chicken/egg problem. People are driven away from assembly because there aren't as many libraries and development/debug tools available for it, but the libs/tools don't exist because not enough people use assembly to warrant the effort creating them.

最后，任何语言都有适用的时间和地点。人们使用他们最熟悉和最有成效的东西。在程序员的程序库中可能总会有汇编的位置，但是大多数程序员会发现他们可以用一种高级语言编写代码，这种语言在更少的时间内几乎同样高效。