人们似乎忘记了还有另一个方向。

为什么你一开始要用汇编语言写东西?为什么不用一种真正低级的语言来编写程序呢?

而不是

mov eax, 0x123
add eax, 0x456
push eax
call printInt

你还是写吧

B823010000
0556040000
50 
FF15.....

这有很多好处，你知道你的程序的确切大小，你可以重用指令的值作为其他指令的输入，你甚至不需要汇编程序来编写它，你可以使用任何文本编辑器……

你仍然喜欢汇编程序的原因，是其他人喜欢C语言的原因。

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。

为什么?简单。

比较一下:

        for (var i = 1; i <= 100; i++)
        {
            if (i % 3 == 0)
                Console.Write("Fizz");
            if (i % 5 == 0)
                Console.Write("Buzz");
            if (i % 3 != 0 && i % 5 != 0)
                Console.Write(i);
            Console.WriteLine();
        }

with

.locals init (
    [0] int32 i)
L_0000: ldc.i4.1 
L_0001: stloc.0 
L_0002: br.s L_003b
L_0004: ldloc.0 
L_0005: ldc.i4.3 
L_0006: rem 
L_0007: brtrue.s L_0013
L_0009: ldstr "Fizz"
L_000e: call void [mscorlib]System.Console::Write(string)
L_0013: ldloc.0 
L_0014: ldc.i4.5 
L_0015: rem 
L_0016: brtrue.s L_0022
L_0018: ldstr "Buzz"
L_001d: call void [mscorlib]System.Console::Write(string)
L_0022: ldloc.0 
L_0023: ldc.i4.3 
L_0024: rem 
L_0025: brfalse.s L_0032
L_0027: ldloc.0 
L_0028: ldc.i4.5 
L_0029: rem 
L_002a: brfalse.s L_0032
L_002c: ldloc.0 
L_002d: call void [mscorlib]System.Console::Write(int32)
L_0032: call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine()
L_0037: ldloc.0 
L_0038: ldc.i4.1 
L_0039: add 
L_003a: stloc.0 
L_003b: ldloc.0 
L_003c: ldc.i4.s 100
L_003e: ble.s L_0004
L_0040: ret 

它们在功能上是相同的。 第二个甚至不是汇编程序，而是。net IL(中间语言，类似于Java的字节码)。第二次编译将IL转换为本地代码(即几乎是汇编程序)，使其更加神秘。

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?

因为事情总是这样:时间流逝，美好的东西也会消逝:(

但是当你编写asm代码时，这与编写高级语言的感觉完全不同，尽管你知道它的效率要低得多。这就像你是一个画家:你可以自由地画任何你喜欢的东西，完全没有限制(嗯，只有CPU的功能)……这就是我喜欢它的原因。很遗憾这种语言消失了。但只要有人还记得它并对它进行编码，它就永远不会消亡!

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。