Sure x86 is more ubiquitous (or is it really? Many arm cores and embedded AVR are released embedded) but the number of times I've needed asm in x86 is way less than I've had with those embedded platforms where a byte is a byte ... (ditto for cycles) edit:typo
> Sure x86 is more ubiquitous (or is it really? Many arm cores and embedded AVR are released embedded)
I can't make sense of this. Is your logic "there are more ARM CPUs than x86 CPUs => there are more programmers dealing with ARM assembly than with x86 assembly"?
> but the number of times I've needed asm in x86 is way less than I've had with those embedded platforms
Sure, this is your situation. But are you claiming your situation is typical? In your mind do the majority of programmers who deal with assembly deal with embedded platforms as much as you do?
You're asking leading questions but they don't really...seem to lead anywhere.
You suggested x86 assembly was more useful to learn than ARM or AVR ("AVR or ARM assembly are far less handy to know than x86"), but provided no justification for that claim - and yet seem to be extremely demanding on similar claims of others.
So what's your situation? Are you claiming that it's typical?
The logic of: "desktop CPUs are rarely coded in assembly, embedded CPUs are absolutely everywhere and often coded in assembly, the latter assembly languages are more useful to know" is extremely obvious and straightforward. I can't make sense of your opposition to it, especially since you've given absolutely no substance to back up your contrarian position.
