Historians Recreate Source Code of First 4004 Application 159
mcpublic writes "The team of 'digital archaeologists' who developed the technology behind the Intel Museum's 4004 microprocessor exhibit have done it again. 36 years after Intel introduced their first microprocessor on November 15, 1971, these computer historians have turned the spotlight on the first application software ever written for a general-purpose microprocessor: the Busicom 141-PF calculator. At the team's web site you can download and play with an authentic calculator simulator that sports a cool animated flowchart. Want to find out how Busicom's Masatoshi Shima compressed an entire four-function, printing calculator into only 1,024 bytes of ROM? Check out the newly recreated assembly language "source code," extensively analyzed, documented, and commented by the team's newest member: Hungary's Lajos Kintli. 'He is an amazing reverse-engineer,' recounts team leader Tim McNerney, 'We understood the disassembled calculator code well enough to simulate it, but Lajos really turned it into "source code" of the highest standards.'"
Amazing! (Score:5, Insightful)
'He is an amazing reverse-engineer,' recounts team leader Tim McNerney, 'We understood the disassembled calculator code well enough to simulate it, but Lajos really turned it into "source code" of the highest standards.'
No disrespect to Lajos, but have we really fallen so far in programming standards that it's considered "amazing" to disassemble a 1024 byte program? Back in my day (and stay the hell off my lawn!) we used to disassemble programs all the time. I reverse engineered the operating system for a computer I developed for because we wanted to hook into places that weren't accessible.
Disassembly is apparently a lost art in these decadent days of some programmers never using anything but scripting languages (e.g., Java, Python, Perl) and having no clue what goes on under the hood.
Re:Amazing! (Score:4, Insightful)
From a theoretical point of view, assembly knowledge isn't particularly useful because it doesn't lend itself to rigorous analysis (the "science" part of "computer science"). From a practical point of view, since very few programs are written in assembly language anymore, knowledge of it has limited utility. Further, from a practical point of view, I'd much rather deal with a programmer who can explain his work in terms of data structures and algorithms than one that is stuck thinking in terms of registers and memory locations.
There is certainly a place for assembly knowledge*. It's just a niche, and not a particularly important one anymore. Meanwhile, there are lots and lots of diverse applications for the theory they teach you in those classes instead of assembly. In my own work, I've had to bust out the graph theory way more often than I've had to bust out my knowledge of asm tricks for fast line-rendering...
*) Interestingly enough, one of those places is inside the language runtimes of high-level languages. There are usually lots of neat tricks inside those things (eg: using the NaN space of double-precision floats to store unions of floats and 51-bit integers without extra variant tags!)