Good luck golfing with it...

I don't know x86 but I'll try with 6502

@@nokkonokko invent a new form of code golfing called "novelwriting" and see who can write the longest readable book that is also a useful program.

@ilkemincraft753 and then actually perform the play

@@tissuepaper9962 what defines a useful program? because it certainly seems hard

3:53

Well, yes, but it's still better than the other UTF representations.

i'd argue that UTF-8 is one of the most beautifully elegant ideas in all of computer science, up there with the Y combinator, but its genius lies in its simplicity and its social impact rather than logical gymnastics. having one dead-simple encoding for all historical and current human written language is a truly *marvelous* thing. i can speak the word "duck" to you in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs very directly and literally: "𓅬", right here in this comment box. all blame for the hooey code points which don't represent written text, like BEL/BELL, lies with ASCII and the other historical ancestors. i fully support a version 2 that drops ASCII back-compat

​@@gloverelaxisthe backwards compatibility of UTF8 is what makes it really interesting (and useful). Almost every source code file is representable with it in an incredibly clever way it allows the expansion into every other character you can want.

Except for stuff like shift-jis which isn't compatible at all (aside that it uses ASCII for the first 127 code points like everything except ebcdic) and appears frequently enough to not just be completely forgotten but infrequently enough that people who need to know, don't know about it.

haha

That was such a huge setup for that reveal. Im impressed. "Haha got you! I spent so long jumping through hoops to write this code to troll you!"

My jaw dropped when it revealed the infamous image! :D :D LOL Great job! Amazing video and research! :)

And better than the masterpiece was at 25:42

I saw it coming at the last second, and I loved it. I wept tears of joy.

People tend to learn to code at a fairly high level then wander down to lower levels. Whilst I was on that path, I couldn't help but think "this can't be how that's done, it's uglier than my most hacky code" - but sure enough, that is how it's done. Some people then wander down to hardware level and it's somehow even worse, after starting with a high level language and writing beautiful, Indented code then discovering that eventually it ends up as what can only be described as absolute shite it's pretty jarring.

Akin to submitting a proofread manuscript detailing how to build a rocket to reach the moon, and the caveman executing it just farts really hard and gets there. Your screen still shows a rocket.@@Mmouse_

​@@Mmouse_It's somehow relieving. Even the best code I write ends up as unintelligble gibberish so whatever lol

I didn't hear that the first time, even if I didn't skip that part ^^

I mean, he's not wrong.

AND drinking games

I wasn't sure it was "Hyrule" and I brushed the word off as some word I don't know.

Only link can defeat ganon

Thank you! I'm content with becoming a vague memory in a decade :)

Couldn't have put it into words any better myself. It's really inspiring :)

​@@kasparpoland9803 That's a great pun considering the video

Are you sure? :) Unfortunately due to constraints in the header, these EXEs have to be 400k. Did you see that video of a guy live-streaming pressing his mouse button a million times? It'd basically be like that!

@@tom7 could you have a macro that does it?

@@waxt0n well, he has the compiler that he described in the video

@@tom7 make .coms instead of .exes.

@@tom7 pay someone to do it

I... guess .... ??? I mean ... I'm confused ...

In a 25 min video, even.

It's been so long since it happened to me, it took me a second to recognize it. Well, that, and it's 2:25 a.m.

The most elaborate rick roll ever!

wait this comment has 256 likes... I don't wanna spoil it...

car keys TIS has basically no instructions compared to IA or even ARM. IA is more complicated than most languages that target it.

GET SHENZHEN IO ALSO EXAPUNKS LOOKS FUN MHRD TOO

@@unflexian MHRD is hard as shit. The furthest I could get without looking up schematics was the full-adder.

@@unflexian Oh fuck, I already thought the Zachtronics games were next level but MHDR looks another few levels beyond that and now I have to play it.

This video made me think of that game. I suck at it so bad. Was better at Exapunks.

Thanks for watching! :)

Thanks! :) I just write down silly ideas I have, then spend months executing them...

@@tom7 I wish I was as dedicated to my actual life as you are to these seemingly pointless yet fascinating projects

@Ibrahim Braydon wow, bots

@@imperatusmauser7096 and even a reply bot lol

@@devhypercoder2522 I've been seeing these bots everywhere, especially in CodeVault's videos

Well, thanks for saying that. :) The main reason I don't share more stuff is that I usually put a lot of work into the setup (this project was my main programming hobby for a few months) and since I have a full-time job, there's only so many hours in the day (and only so many brain-sugars in the brain)!

suckerpinch I was really happy when you said you wouldn't be explaining bytes and byte code and all that. I was worried I would be forced to sit through a lot of stuff I already knew. You ended up not explaining a lot of stuff I didn't know, but that was completely fine because you explained everything that was needed to understand the video. It's this kind of editorial control that makes your videos a joy to watch.

You're welcome and thanks for saying so! :)

I didn't watch the full video. I set up DOSBox just to run the file to see what it does after trying to compile a different 16 bit emulator. I just went through so much effort to get rick rolled by a text file.

That is very interesting.

There was no QBasic in the 80s.

@@hobbified Well, I suppose that's what makes them so misleading

Hey be nice to my mommy! :)

That's just how he rolls

thank you (:

aw thanks :)

Of course

The "how dare you not save a couple instructions in a project that took you months to accomplish and yielded you a research paper" strikes again.

@@MatheusAugustodaSilva well, cutting in half the number of operations needed for a simple AND is kind of a big deal

The important thing is that the RIGHT 150,000 people see it!

you're kinda spoiling it for other people since it’s the top comment :/

@@davidmikan7925 tbh KZfaq mobile app is to blame for displaying the top comment prominently. This functionality is included in the past few months

Yes, and good eye. Somehow I missed this option. Plus is a nice segue in the presentation, at least.

Cool! Did you have to write all of this assembly by hand? Or did you just be _very specific_ to the compiler what you wanted? Not sure which would be easier, actually...

I wrote the compiler, so it's sort of a mix. At each stage (intermediate language) I get to pick what operations are available, but then I have to pay for that by implementing them (basically 'hand writing' code) in the next lower-level language. OR sticks around until the conversion to the "LLVMNOP" language, where it decomposes into AND, MOV, and XOR, and then I implement those three in printable x86 more-or-less by hand.

Hmmm, seems tedious. But then again, the process for making everyone of your entries so far does! Great stuff, man!

@@tom7 "LLVMNOP" sounds like your toddler confidently trying to finish your sentence.

Aw thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it :)

hehe cya!

OMG! Hahahaha, That totally “terminated” the thread.

Hi there

I think ASCII shell code is an actual thing

Thanks! :) I don't know if I have a short answer for that, but I can say that behind the scenes there's a lot of hard work and anxiety and struggling with motivation and so on. Of course I don't present that part, because it's not that fun to watch, but it's certainly not effortless!

As an aspiring and amateur developer myself, that's reassuring to hear (not to delight in your struggles ;P)! I worked through most of "C Programming: A Modern Approach" and then about 1/4th of the way through K&R before I got really stumped at some problem and lost my drive a few months ago. I guess it's as simple as getting back on the horse, and staying on until I tame that mofo. Sorry for fangasming, but you're definitely a wizard-tier developer and I can't help but be enthralled when I get a taste of the work that you do at the level you're at. Seeing your videos and people like you who are both intellectual and playfully fun is really inspiring, so thanks a ton for your content and explanations and just bein' a cool dude.

Starting an actual project you're interested in is a much better way to learn a programming, or a specific language. Books are only good as a reference IMO, programming is really one of those things that you have to actually *do* to learn it. You will forget most things you read from the book, whereas if you start an actual project, you'll remember more, you'll be more motivated, and it'll be way more fun experience overall.

smoke crack

@@marksmod lol

mick maus I saw what date it was and thought "Hey, Sigbovik (sic) is tomorrow, wonder if Tom7 got anything?"

Glad you enjoyed it and thanks for watching! (:

thanks for the encouragement! :)

Glad it came out okay (for you at least). I felt like it was really difficult to get through it all, since there was so much more to say about everything, and yet 25 minutes seems way too long to hold someone's attention? Thank you for watching :)

@@tom7 you would've had my attention even if it was a few hours. See also Ben Eater

@@tom7 To a very select audience your videos are like nerd crack

(1000) XOR (0110) = 1110... Seems to do the same thing in the same amount of steps (3)

+gafeht But he said that we don't have + operation so he needed to make it with other stuff, so just putting XOR in the middle is actually better. Or maybe he knew about it and used + to demonstrate that he will need to make that + from other operations aswell.

+Architector #4 Ah, you're right. I missed that the second time through. Nice thinking +contrl31

It's better for the narrative of the video to use plus, so I'm glad I did, but XOR is definitely faster. Fixed the compiler. A few people have pointed this out, and I'm kinda ashamed I didn't spot it. Good eyes :)

Don't worry. (I spotted that too.)

Why not? He drew it really nicely, actually .-.

It is a totally obscure in-joke for a few friends, relating to this cartoon: www.cs.cmu.edu/~tom7/csnotes/spring03/compiler-time.gif

oh god lol

Woah, removing "compiler-time.gif" from the end of that link reveals more images... That my brain can't make any logical sense of... ._.

It takes in some shit, does some magical things with it, and still comes out as something that sort of still represents what came into it

Yeah god damn im shook

Thank you for the warning

Way to spoil it for every mobile user :c

@@kgallchobhair your fault for reading comments before the video.

Yep. Ran it in DOSbox before I even watched the video - wasn't expecting that.

Not to mention the times I subconsciously rickrolled myself from having it stuck in my head and humming it...

suckerpinch now I have it stuck in my head again!!!

It's hard to know what subset of the work the audience will already be familiar with, so I just tried to pick a few interesting parts and weave a story around them while assuming as little as possible. C compilation is interesting and I could do a whole 5-hour video series on it, but it needs some background and is also pretty standard in this case. It's not until you get fairly low level that the constraints of the instruction set start causing problems.

Dude anything about compilation or low-mid level content is very good. I've just finished a microcomputing course so basically covered most of this material for the motorola 86k processor and that helped a lot. I watched this video last year when I knew virtually nothing, and there's quite the difference in understanding, even being unfamiliar with this version of assembly.

You can not make a quine as there is no way to print, INT 21 is inaccessible. Well, it is only accessible one time throughout the lifetime of your program, and it's necessary to quit. I assume he used + because it segways into the next part, as in the paper he jumps into addition immediately after explaining how to implement or.

Yeah, quine was my first thought; it would have been a very elegant knot. It might be possible to print using some other tricks (or direct software access), but I couldn't figure it out before the deadline. Id' also have to grapple with the difficulties with assembling (due to instructions that change size with different immediates), which could maybe make solving for a quine very hard. I actually hadn't noticed the XOR trick (clearly better), but + is a nice segue as AODQ says, so I'm kinda glad I didn't. :)

He said exactly that a day before you posted... and it's 'segue'.

He did? Didn't see it. Well I suppose he said everything in the paper itself. And yea it's segue.

kompiouter kai arithmoi mas fagane ti zwh na poume

What about it?

Um; like, comment, subscribe, google + etc.

Doesn't it apply for all smart people though? Mainstream meadia are a parade of stupidity these days, figures.

Peter GANS there are some interesting hypothetical computers with only 1 instruction, and are still turing complete 👌en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_instruction_set_computer

Check out movfuscator github.com/xoreaxeaxeax/movfuscator

A lot of them, apparently. There's a Defcon talk about the "Movfuscator" which implements x86 with the Mov instruction, and while it was a while ago that I watched it, I think he achieved full functionality. He mentions a couple of other single instructions that have the same property.

Any instruction that can be used in a way to simulate a MOV can be used like the movfuscator (also, the movfuscator cheats by abusing interrupts and using bogus mov instructions to trigger interrupts)

Maybe I did not understand that right, but we still need alot of different integers for the arguments which suckerpinch restricted to only printable ones.

No dude, you actually failed here :D Why do you assume he is to aware of meaning of FI? He spent probably hundreds hours staring in this book. In this case, that particular FI in question is a error, it mustn't be there. Look into recent intel instruction set reference, you will find exactly this description, but correct - without first FI. It is just editor mistake.

@@yaroslavpanych2067 So what you're saying is that not only is it my fault that he pointed to the FI, called it a typo, and didn't clarify what he was referring to, but I was somehow supposed to know, without any context, that by "typo", he was referring to a structural logic error and not a spelling/indentation error? So it's safe to assume, then, that if I show you a random snippet of code without any context, I can expect you to know everything about that snippet of code just from looking at it? Well that's just unrealistic.

@@yaroslavpanych2067 Or are you saying that the FI is an error because it precedes the matching ELSE? That is an unreasonable assumption to make without a visible counterexample to show that self-consistency has been compromised. There is no other example in that snippet of an if/else compound, so it's safe to assume that 'FI' is analogous to '}' from C-like languages. What I am claiming: IF cond THEN ... FI; IF cond THEN ... FI; ELSE ... FI; are analogous to if (cond) { ... } if (cond) { ... } else { ... } and are thus perfectly valid. And I claim this without the context of the entire book to show any counter examples. There is only the snippet in the video, and what is visible in that moment in time. Therefore, this is what I can _reasonably_ conclude with the given information. The problem here is that the guy in the video does NOT attempt to show any counter examples or explain why what he's pointing at is a typo. Instead, he just claims its a typo, and, again without any context, all I can _reasonably_ conclude with the given information is that he must be unfamiliar with "fi" and just said it was a typo in the moment. You, on the other hand, are making conclusions that may be drawn from outside information or speculation, conclusions that are specifically not supported by the visible snippet. Therefore, it is unreasonable to claim that I "failed", just as it would be unreasonable to claim that Einstein "failed" in the event that some future discovery demonstrates a massive hole in general relativity. In fact, given what can be known from the visible snippet, I can go so far as to say that my assertion was _ostensibly correct,_ as the innermost IF lacks a matching FI, which contradicts the rest of the visible pseudocode, and that therefore _you_ are the one who "failed". I'm not claiming you're wrong, but I _am_ claiming that your expectations are unreasonable. That said, I went ahead and edited the OP to be less matter of fact since I was also guilty of speculation.

@@BradenBest The typo is that the FI; should not be there. It isn't used to end THEN clauses in the book (I think this syntax would be problematic because it would then be ambiguous whether a following ELSE went with that IF or a containing one, which seems contrary to the purpose of using FI in the first place). I wasn't trying to explain the error in the video; I was simply trying to make the case that this stuff is tricky because even the official reference manuals are fallible.

@@tom7 As crappy as 'IF THEN FI ELSE FI' would be (versus IF THEN ELSE FI) design-wise, I have to disagree on the point about ambiguity: "I think this syntax would be problematic because it would then be ambiguous whether a following ELSE went with that IF or a containing one[...]" There is no ambiguity here. This is what I assume you must be thinking: IF A THEN IF B THEN do_thing_ab FI ELSE (does this match the inner or outer if?) do_thing_a FI ... But again, if FI is analogous to '}', and ends both if and else statements, then it can only mean one thing. IF A THEN (nest level 0->1) IF B THEN (1->2) do_thing_ab FI (2->1) ELSE *(matches inner if)* (1->2) do_thing_a FI (2->1) FI (ends outer if) (1->0) It's crappy, but it's not ambiguous. IF A THEN IF B THEN do_thing_ab FI ELSE (matches inner if) do_thing_a FI FI IF A THEN IF B THEN do_thing_ab FI FI ELSE (matches outer if) do_thing_c FI And the same things but with the THEN's replaced with {, FI's replaced with }, and the implicit open statement on each ELSE replaced with {: IF A { IF B { do_thing_ab } ELSE { do_thing_a } } IF A { IF B { do_thing_ab } } ELSE { do_thing_c }