Lecture 9 | Programming Paradigms (Stanford)

[sumanhit]

Great lectures ... Also shocked to see a Professor in Half Pants ....

[algnadjib]

100% likes

[MrHanijoon]

His explanations are really clear. Hats off.

[Martyeffinmar]

He looks like Tim Allen with the glasses.

[damasta00138]

ugh this pseudo-assembly syntax is harder to understand than the real thing....I mean take

BGE R2, 4, PC+ and its (Intel) equivalent

CMP EBX, 4 (compare the register to 4)

JGE PC (jump if greater than equal to PC label)

But all in all these lectures are helpful and they taught me why you have to use registers as intermediates instead of performing operations on memory (because the ALU, Register, and Memory setup)

[imorio]

24:52 is such great material for a demotivational.

[superCoolHandle]

I just about shit myself laughing when he switched it up to "does that sit well with everybody?" for some reason.

[Realitydenizen]

@superCoolHandle He just wants to make sure he makes sense to people.

[arthas702]

the more I watch this, the more I want to rip my undergraduate teacher's face off

[jjonnny0]

I know some people were hoping for an assembly language tutorial from this lecture... but clearly it didn't happen. If you want to learn MIPS or x86 assembly, there's plenty out there.

This lecture points out how arbitrary the actual encoding is. It sort of generalizes assembly in an interesting way. I didn't go to Stanford, so I don't know what your average CS107 student knows, but this was very helpful to me knowing both MIPS and x86, in terms of figuring out how to generalize that knowledge.

[MyOverflow]

I was hoping for a real assembly language to be used. Oh well, these are still great lectures.

I guess I'll have to continue reading "PC Assembly" by Paul Carter and "Programming from the Ground Up" for a real-world x86 assembly introduction. I really was hoping that these lectures would be a good supplement for the books.

But, like I said, these are great lectures. I knew many of the concepts of programming in the videos, thus far, but there were twice as many that I didn't know. :)

[RapinaAve]

I Agree

[jestertru]

He's "old school". I learned most of this stuff in the 1970s during the 1st microcomputer revolution when you had to build your own, load your own bootstrapper, and program in assembly to do almost anything. This was a very good prep for C in the 1980s - I'd use the compile-to-assembly to grok C when I was learning it. This is, sadly, not widely know to many people on CS today. I can't imagine how they can claim to really "know" CS without it!

[sabriath]

@jestertru : pretty sad isn't it? "old school" people seemed to know much more than the children running around today using libraries to help them. I miss the days of PET/CBM sometimes...just the challenge of fitting your programs for speed AND size -- today neither are important because "memory is a dime-a-dozen", makes me sick to think people no longer optimize by hand.

[damasta00138]

@sabriath It's because there's hardly anywhere to learn from. It took me years to stumble on material to learn assembly with (I started programming at 13). The further down you aspire to go, the less available material you can find. 90% of it is those same old "Hello World" tutorials. Without knowledge of what you could truly achieve, you settle for whatever is sufficient (i.e., when you spend hours debugging, you'd be happy to see the program just compile and run).

[tyebillion]

"gulp, does that make sense..."

seriously though, these are good lectures.

[abeesk]

pleaase genius create for us C++ lecture too =)) :))) awaiting, all of us =)))) 5

[snaxion]

Jerry has a silver tongue. Good job.

[abeesk]

yeaah it makes sense :))))))) :))))) great

[mahboop]

hi,

thanks