argh I'm annoyed with myself-- I was avoiding putting Compiler Explorer links in my lecture slides because I'm teaching AT&T assembly but it uses Intel syntax.
but I forgot Compiler Explorer can print assembly the other way too!!
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from regehr@mastodon.social
@regehr you monster
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from joe@f.duriansoftware.com
@joe I'm a slave to the textbook
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from regehr@mastodon.social
@regehr @joe The textbook full of undefined behavior in its C code? Of course that textbook would go with AT&T. Real sicko shit.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from pervognsen@mastodon.social
@regehr Counter point -- you can teach students why to use Intel syntax. ;]
(I'm weirdly/finally coming around after an eon of reading AT&T because of GCC (and thus LLVM) output)
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from chandlerc@hachyderm.io
@chandlerc I know but it's too much swimming upstream, the labs, the textbook -- everything uses AT&T. which I find ugly.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from regehr@mastodon.social
@regehr :shoulder devils up:
You know... You could always write a textbook. And labs. That use the good stuff, teach the good stuff, etc.
Could even, you know... add your own ideas to it and influence a whole bunch of students.
(I know, I'm so helpful suggesting things that take massive amounts of time and dedication and energy and won't materialize for years.)
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from chandlerc@hachyderm.io
@chandlerc yeah I mean the thing is, CS:APP is pretty good. if it didn't exist I'd have wanted to write it, but it does...
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from regehr@mastodon.social
@regehr But it could be great... ;]
What really bugs me about it all, is that if the content for these things was open source in some way, we could, like, collaborate and fix stuff.
And I'd still hope for the original publisher to publish it charging all the money -- no one wants (I suspect, not being an actual professor) to teach directly from the open source stuff. Like, pay people good money to bootstrap initial content, and to review and validate everything before each edition, and charge people good money for each published edition. But also let's get the sources for stuff under an OSS license and in a place where we can cross pollinated and contribute, etc.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from chandlerc@hachyderm.io
@chandlerc yeah it's all kind of complicated and suboptimal. and the fact that we can't fix stuff in CS:APP is bad.
overall, these days, I don't think the textbook publishers add all that much value.
and in operating systems, for example, there are a couple of great open-source textbooks (xv6 and OSTEPS). but the CS:APP niche hasn't been filled by anything open source.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from regehr@mastodon.social
@chandlerc the vast majority of people who write a textbook don't make much money. but there are exceptions -- I know some guys who (many years ago now) wrote an intro-level C++ book that got widely adopted and my understanding is they made quite a lot of money off that
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from regehr@mastodon.social
@chandlerc I don't really have a point here, but yeah I agree with you. the textbook situation is similar to research publishing where a lot of stuff is published via for-profit outfits who make everything worse.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from regehr@mastodon.social This content has been proxied by September (3851b).Proxy Information
text/gemini