When I learnt programming (back in early 2000s) the textbook said C is a high level 3rd generation language with 4th gen languages being something higher (I don't remember what examples were given specifically). This is back when the java applets and action script for flash were the hot things. How I miss the days without the world being cursed by JS.
I would also like to add some of the higher level features available in most assembly languages.
Memory management. You can define variables, for example, a string one containing "Hello, world!" and the compiler will correctly allocate required memory and you don't need to know its address while writing the code, you just reference the variable.
Code labels. If you want to do a conditional or unconditional jump, you need to know the address of the code you want to reach. But, obviously, every change you make to your code base will change the memory layout of your binary. Asembly provides code labels. You can think of them like function names.
Assembly allows you to reference 3rd party libraries without knowing exact function entry addresses. You just use function names like you would with C or any other language.
Modern assembly languages have even more higher level features, like macros support. And some are even hardware agnostic, like intermediate representation assembly language used in LLVM.
When the gp's book says that C is a third generation language: I would guess the first generation is Fortran and the second generation contains ALGOL and BCPL. C was heavily influenced by BCPL. (get it? C comes after B)
I mean, C is a high level language? Now, sure, C isn't a super expressive language and every C statement compiles to very few assembly instructions comparatively speaking, but it has a whole lot of stuff that assembly doesn't have. Like nice loops and other control structures and such, and not worry about which processor registers are used.
I didn't ask and I don't care. If people reclaimed the Swastika tomorrow but it continues to be used by trumpets and alt-right, then I sure as hell won't start accepting it.
There it is! Tankies are so "reasonable" being aligned with authoritarian warmongers. Idk why you proclaim to be so against nazis when you share so much of your ideology with them.
You acknowledge pepe the frog as an alt right fascist symbol on Internet memes. But when armed forces in Ukraine use SS and black sun on their garment, you think it's fine. Did west reclaim swastika and other nazi symbols, then?
At which point did I defend Putin or Xi in this conversation? I used the same argument as you did to argue that there's Nazi sympathetic fighters in the Ukrainian armed forces.
Would you defend soldiers fighting side by side Nazi symbols?
So are you saying nazi leadership in Ukraine isn’t nazi?
As you clearly appear to be unaware, Ukraine is not under "Nazi Leadership." That's something you were told in order to justify Russia's attempts to conquer them for their resources and expand their own borders just as they have in the past.
Now. Ukrainian military, its puppet leadership and its NATO allies are pretty accepting of fighting side by side, and providing weapons to Nazi sympathetic fighters.
The battalion has said it repeatedly denies “allegations of fascism, nazism and racism,” in response to claims it had associations with White supremacists and neo-Nazi ideology.
The US State Department said Tuesday that Russian disinformation “has actively worked to discredit” the unit. “They have long tried to conflate Ukraine’s National Guard Unit of 12th Special Forces Brigade Azov with a militia formed to defend Ukraine against Russia’s invasion in 2014, called the “Azov Battalion,” a State Department spokesperson said. “That militia disbanded in 2015 and the Special Forces Brigade Azov is unrelated to that militia.”
And at the mere notion that they might have been involved in those activities, the US State department had cut their funding eligibility until it could be certain otherwise. It's like you wanted to be proven misinformed when you posted this.
Ok, so you're saying that having them wearing those Nazi badges is fine because the imperialist state department from the country that hired a non negligible number of Nazis after the Germans capitulated said the nazi patch wearing azov combatants are not doing anything wrong?
And at the same time, using pepe the frog online is clearly alt-right?
Just like you believe when the US state department say Israel is doing nothing against human rights in Palestine?
Azov has gotten completely diluted by a gigantic influx of ordinary people, its hardcore Nazi times were over before they were even rolled into Ukraine's overall command structure which came along with some more denazification. The Wolfsangel isn't recognised as a far-right symbol in Ukraine by the general public so they kept it. It's also not a clear-cut Nazi symbol even in Germany, you see it on plenty of coat of arms, it also has plenty of use in forestry which is its original source: You hang it with bait onto a branch to kill wolves in a rather gruesome manner. That's outlawed nowadays but you still see it on border forestry border stones, to mark wood, etc. The heraldic use derives from that, it symbolises presence or importance of forestry in the area the coat of arm represents. Not much forest around the Azov sea, though.
Those are not the Nazis you're looking for. If you want to see, well not exactly nazis but the hot-bed of ultranationalists in the Ukrainian army have a look at the right sector regiment. Dylan Burns did an interview.
Next up: Someone's going to claim that the Ukrainian army uses the "Iron Cross". First off, the Bundeswehr still uses it, secondly, no the Ukrainians don't use it you're looking at the Cossack Cross, derived independently from the Templar Cross, unlike the Iron Cross not via the Teutonic Order. They've been using that thing for centuries.
EDIT: Oh wait I just remembered I'm completely banned from lemmygrad they won't see this. Well, whatever.
An icon represents what the people think it represents.
An icon can also have different meanings to different people. It's ok if you don't like it. But I don't think it's fair to say that the majority of people that use or share Pepe are from one specific ideological group
Honestly I expected the ratio to be worse given the context of the post. People generally don't like having harsh reality pointed out on their funny meme images.
Almost every meme template has been used to make alt-right nonsense, do we just abandon any symbol they pick up for their misdeeds? Or do we push back and refuse to allow them that kind of control over our culture?
Very few and far between were exclusive to the right. Pepe was. It started as theirs and continued to be theirs for a long time, in my opinion still continues to be theirs. You few fighting for the symbol's continued use in good faith (if you are) are not the majority.
It started as a french cartoon and got coopted into the feelsbadman meme format in 2009 and then skyrocketed in popularity and mainstream use in 2015-2016 by pro-trump conservatives.
Even if it were present in every single greentext like some sort of bizarre requirement, it still would have more use by nazis and propogandists than anyone else.
Imagine unironically saying we should normalize nazi swastikas. If that's not what it takes for you to reevaluate your stance, then you're a lost cause.
the symbol predates Germany, initial findings date it back to 3300-1300 BC. you're telling me all historical religious symbols in Asian countries should wiped of the icon because of Nazis misappropriating their symbol? you would literally deface ancient sites that predate nazis by thousands of years because you can only see it as a symbol of hate?
you can use context clues such as actual hate speech, nazi slogans and genocide to distinguish those that are actually racist. the whole point of nazism is to erase culture and replace it with only the "one true race". by allowing nazis and white supremacists to appropriate symbols you're actively giving them power.
So then, you think Nazi Swastikas without context should be allowed without any repercussions. I saw your first comment, I don't see why you think using more words to say the same thing would make it any different.
Here are some questions: How does punishing nazis for using symbols of hate and intolerance empower them? How does allowing them to do so freely harm them in contrast?
You do not need to use a nazi swastika. A world where they are not allowed in public is a world where people feel safe and comfortable. Just as you do not need to use the frog. The frog is unimportant and only continues to exist because people like you fight for it.
Yes, again, I've read your comments and understood them. Maybe you're the one having comprehension troubles, here?
I don't see how this comment in any way argues against any of my statements. You either never disagreed with me to begin with about swastikas being bannable outside of specific religious contexts, or you want contextless hate speech to be allowed as a blanket rule. There is no in-between.
is English your first language because you either don't understand what I'm saying or you are too ignorant to understand.
swastikas being bannable outside of specific religious contexts
that's literally what i said. the context around the symbol is what is important. no one in south west asia sees a swastika and think Nazis because it's part of the religious culture. just as no one sees Pepe and thinks nazis because no one normal participated in that shit subculture of 4chan except Nazis.
Let's actually look at what happened with Pepe, he was created by an artist then appropriated by Nazis. The artist then posted that he was outraged and disappointed that it was taken over by Nazis. people listened and were also outraged and did everything to normalize and take it back from the Nazis, because again it wasn't theirs to take in the first place. now you imagine the 12 year old posting it are nazis when they have no context of any of the events your talking about. go touch grass, your brain is rotting.
We should turn their name into an extreme political symbol symbol on the opposite side of their political spectrum. That way they'll know that they're also evil because they use that evil symbol.
How can you sit there and understand that Swastikas are not acceptable and belong to fascist racial supremacists, while also have the understanding that it is used acceptably by religions from the east, but not understand how pepe can belong to the alt-right? You're holding opposing views, it's like you're just here to argue.
So then, you think Nazi Swastikas without context should be allowed without any repercussions.
That's incoherent. "Nazi swastika" and "without context" doesn't mesh because "Nazi" is a context for "swastika".
That aside, I'm going to take German law as an example: No, non-nazi swastikas are very much not outlawed. You can see them on stray Hindu temples or shrines in the country, for example. "Without" context they're generally assumed to be Nazi ones over here because historical context, also, only Nazis draw random swastikas over here. You also see ones broken in pieces getting thrown in the trash or in a crossed-out circle, those come from the Antifa side.
Both the Hindu and Antifa uses are legal, the Nazi ones aren't. That's because German law doesn't outlaw the swastika as such, it outlaws "using symbols of unconstitutional or outlawed organisations in a manner suitable to further their aims". A Nazi painting a Swastika on a Jewish gravestone is considered furthering the aims of the NSDAP, which had the swastika as their logo. A Hindu chiselling a swastika into their gravestone is a completely different matter. (Do Hindus use gravestones? Anyway doesn't matter it's a hypothetical example).
In another country, where the historical context is different, those "without" context swastikas won't be interpreted the same as in Germany. So even under German law those would arguably be legal, there.
Lmao, what a wild assumption that they could take whatever icons they like, with no basis in reality.
that’s…. exactly what they do buddy. you don’t seem the type to care for counter-examples so i won’t even try and list any of the many, many fucking instances of this happening irl
Degenerate, 88, 14, the Roman salute, multiple names, the fascista, shaven heads, lighting motifs, runic symbols.
That's just what I came up with off the top of my head. The other person is right, and I say we should reclaim every symbol because those fuckers shouldn't be allowed to call anything their own or have anything to ralley around or identify each other with. The only symbol I'm aware of that the made was the black sun which is itself simply the ss symbol repeated around a circle, which itself is an appropriated rune.
88, the Roman Salute, a couple of names, and double lightning aren't acceptable and it can stay that way without any harm. Why do you even want those things? It serves no good.
Shaven heads, runes, 14, and the word Degenerate are all fine without additional context, but the first 3 can certainly be red flags in the presence of additional factors.
They should have symbols to call their own, so we can easily identify and target them.
Just off the top of my head those are a few. And that's with people holding the line and continuing to use these symbols without hate. We don't need more people defending their claims.
The only person in this thread who seems intent on pepe being about hate speech is you. I've been asked in some formal settings to avoid using the OK hand sign in case it sends the wrong message. I've been advised by tattoo artists to avoid Nordic symbols despite the fact that I'm of Scandinavian descent. You're enabling the worst kind of people to decide what symbols mean in our culture. Why?
The top level comment is a 15:65 ratio, and that is in the context of a meme utilizing pepe.
Where did you study Futhark and why do you want them on your skin? Some of my ancestors were latin but you won't see me getting a pheonician or greek alphabet on my fingers.
C was originally created as a "high-level" language, being more abstract (aka high-level) than the other languages at the time. But now it's basically considered very slightly more abstract than machine code when compared to the much higher level high-level languages we have today.
Other way around, actually; C was one of several languages proposed to model UNIX without having to write assembly on every line, and has steadily increased in abstraction. Today, C is specified relative to a high-level abstract machine and doesn't really resemble any modern processing units' capabilities.
Incidentally, coming to understand this is precisely what the OP meme is about.
To add on to @azdle 's comment, "High Level" in terms of programming languages means further away from how the computer processes things and "Low Level" means very similar to how machines process things. For example, binary and hexadecimal (16 bit) machine code such as "assembly language" are both low level.
Imagine if program interpreters were building blocks, then 6 layers of abstraction would be very tall or higher level.
This is pedantic, but assembly languages get "assembled" to machine code. This is somewhat similar to higher level languages being "compiled," which eventually becomes assembly which gets assembled. The major reason why these are different is because a compiler changes the structure of the code. Assembly is a direct mapping to instructions. It just converts the text into machine code directly, which is why it's easy to go from machine code to assembly but decompiling doesn't give you identical results to the original source code.
Also, binary and hexadecimal are just different ways to view the same binary data and aren't different things. There is only "machine code" which is a type of binary data but you can view binary with any arbitrary base, though obviously powers of 2 work better.
I don't think I said assembly is abstracted. It's pretty much just a translation.
Hexidecimal isn't binary. They're both just ways to represent numbers. A number displayed in hexadecimal and binary are the same number even though they look different. FF(base 16) = 1111 1111(base 2) = 255(base 10). They're all identical.
Assembly is a direct mapping to instructions. It just converts the text into machine code directly,
Kinda... yes and no? At least with x86 there's still things like encoding selection going on, there's not a 1:1 mapping between assembly syntax and opcodes.
Also assemblers, at least those meant for human consumption (mostly nasm nowadays) tend to have powerful macro systems. That's not assembly as such, of course.
But I think your "a compiler changes the structure of the code" thing is spot-on, an assembler will not reorder instructions, it won't do dead code elimination, but I think it's not really out of scope of an assembler to be able to do those things -- compilers weren't doing them for the longest time, either.
I think a clearer division would be that compilers deal with two sets of semantics: That of the source language, and that of the CPU. The CPU semantics don't say things like "result after overflow is undefined", that's C speaking, and compilers can use those differences to do all kind of shennanigans. With assemblers there's no such translation between different language semantics, it's always the CPU semantics.
Oh that's interesting. I started poking around with a Gameboy emulator guide implemented in Python that intended to emulate a Z80. Got any good resource recommendation in case I decide to pick this back up and inevitably get stuck?
When I was young, we didn't have hex codes, we only had 1 and 0s. One time we where all out of 1s, and I had to code a whole Database system with only 0s!
If you want some modern day fun with this, try the Zachtronics programming games; TIS-100, Shenzhen I/O, and Exapunks.
Or, my personal favorite I only discovered somewhat recently, try Turing Complete. You start by designing all your logic gates from just a negate gate IIRC. You eventually build up an ALU and everything else you need and then create your own computer. Then you define your own assembly language and have to write programs in your assembly language that run on the computer you've designed to complete different tasks. It's a highly underrated game, although it takes a certain type of person to enjoy.
I would say it's very polished. It does everything you'd expect and has some nice QoL features. There was work on a big update that'd improve performance and things, but the last information about that was from Aug of last year as far as I can tell. That's not a big deal though. The game works fine without it.
Another interesting low-level interpreter/emulated system to look into for anyone else trying to get started with this type of thing is the CHIP-8! It's a pretty basic 8/16-bit instruction set (there are 35 opcodes, the instructions themselves are mostly simple) and there are tons of detailed guides on making one and writing roms for them.
In the modern world it's completely subjective.
The lowest-level language is probably ASM/machine code, as many people at least edit that regularly, and the highest-level would be LLMs. They are the shittiest way to program, yes, but technically you just enter instructions and the LLM outputs eg. Python, which is then compiled to bytecode and run. Similar to how eg. Java works. And that's the subjective part; many people (me included) don't use LLMs as the only way to program, or only use them for convenience and some help, therefore the highest level language is probably either some drag-and-drop UI stuff (like scratch), or Python/JS. And the lowest level is either C/C++ (because "no one uses ASM anyway"), or straight up machine code.
Exactly. For every level of abstraction, the abstractor is the high level and the abstractee is the lower level. Those aren't real words perhaps, but you get what I'm saying. It's all relative along the chain of abstraction.
Is it a chain though? I think it's more of a branching network that (almost?) always is stopped at quantum physics and it's theories or some form philosophy.
It's not really abstraction though. It is more like syntactic sugar. In stead of 1000111011 you say ADD, but it is still the exact same thing. There is no functional, prgrammatical benefit of one over the other. It's just that asm is readable by humans.
At least thats as far as I understand asm. I haven't gone beyond NandToTetris
I would argue they don't know what that means really. Assembly is pretty much a mapping of words to machine code. It's just a way to make machine code easier to read. It doesn't actually change how it works.
A compiler re-arranges and modifies things so what you write isn't the same as the final program that is created. With assembly it is. It's not really an abstraction, but a translation. It doesn't move you further from the machine, it only makes it so you're speaking the same language.
