Which programming languages do you know? Which one is your favorite

>>61486941
1. C, Lua, x86 assembly, Java
2. Lua cause it was my first language.
3. Java because fuck Java.
I like Python though I never learned it. I can program in it just by its similarity to Lua and with little peeking in the docs.
I tried many languages but I'm too lazy to learn them some more. Among them Haxe and JS are pretty neat. Haskell sounds nice too but that's the only functional language that I tried so I can't tell if it's good or bad. It's different.

>>61487342
Has x86 ASM been useful for you?

>>61487638
Only to pass assembly course. You asked for languages I know not ones I use everyday.
I'm a brainlet who can only learn a small, primitive language and even if I learn a bigger one I forget it quick if I don't use it.

>>61488005
Asm is simple and fun. You can learn it from a 100-200 pages book and you can play around with virtually everything your computer offers and you don't care about shittons of libraries and other people's code and all the abstractions. Of course it takes more time to write almost everything and you won't make a large project in it but it's fun. Last time I used it was over a year ago and I feel like I could still use it.
And even if I completely forgot it it's just a 100-200 book to review. Compare it to Java's thousand of pages and all the libraries, frameworks and design patterns and principles related.
Also, asm is more readable than Java because the lines of code are much shorter and more appealing to the low buffer of my brainlet. Most of the time one line does one instruction rather than doThisAndDoThatAndDoThisRightHereAsWellAndComposeItTogether()

>>61486941
>Which programming languages do you know?
C
C++ (and CUDA)
JavaScript (and variants such as CoffeeScript)
Python
x86 assembly
Java
PHP
Bash
VHDL

>Which one is your favorite and why?
Python, because of it's simplicity

>Which one is your least favorite and why?
Assembly, because it's too time consuming and requires a lot of effort in making comments in order to make the code readable to others

>>61488012
What book do you recommend for learning it?
I heard "hacking, the art of exploitation" was good but it's focused on security I think.

>>61488082
>What book do you recommend for learning it?
Not him, but get a hold of the Intel manuals (for programming Intel x86).

Reading a book about assembly is fucking retarded, it's just a bunch of simple assembler directives and assembly code. You only need a reference.

>>61488092
Ok, thanks.

I regularly write C, C++, C# and JS. I'm somewhat proficient in x86 ASM but I wouldn't consider myself proficient enough to say that I "know" it exactly.

C# is probably my favorite language in that it's just simple to get any sort of program up and running, and .NET really is amazing. The only downside is a lack of proper cross-platform support (Although the future looks promising in this regard). I find that I use C quite a lot though for compatibility (both backwards and cross-platform) and performance reasons.

I'd say C++ is my least favorite, it has a lot of good ideas but it's poorly executed in a lot of areas and I find that when I write C++ I end up just wanting to write C instead. JS is also a pretty shitty language, but it gets the job done and recent standards have made great strides towards fixing a lot of the bad in the language.

>>61488082
I learned in my native language and only read authors from my country so it wouldn't be much useful to you.

>>61488092
>Reading a book about assembly is fucking retarded
It takes just 1-2 evenings to read a book and it's more enjoyable. Manuals are a good review if you don't use the language very often. And you don't use x86 asm very often unless when you need to debug compiled code or something.

>>61488278
The only reason to read a book is in order to learn about the architecture and how memory layouts work etc. And I agree, that part is enjoyable. But just for the sake of assembly, it makes no sense, and you'd be better off referring to the actual instruction reference. Of course, understanding the fundamentals is a precursor to being able to learn assembly at all, so in that case, sure, read a book. It may be a bit outdated now, but I highly recommend Protected Mode Software Architecture.

I agree that you generally want to avoid programming assembly directly, but it is useful to at least have attempted a couple of times, so you have a general idea of how it works.

>>61486941
1. c, c#, java, llvm, haskell, python, rust
2. haskell, but i only use it for prototyping
3. they all have different use cases, but python is rarely the best choice

>>61486941
1.Java, Javascript, Python, bit of C# and recently got interested in Kotlin and Ruby

2.Java because it was the first language I learned properly

3.C# becuase fuck microshills

>>61488343
Oh yes, you're right. I thought of it the other way around: you learn assembly for the sake of learning about the architecture. That's the way we learned in on the assembly course, it should be rather called "architecture + assembly". There was some discussion about it among students back then. Some said we shouldn't have the course on second semester before learning about the architecture. We learned assembly first and then circuit design on 3rd semester and processors/microcontrollers on 4th.

>>61486941
>Lisp
>Functional

Lol

>>61488878
How is Lisp not functional? Especially Scheme

>>61486941
i don't know shit about programming. What's a good language for someone like me?
i mean,
- Easy to learn
-Good to understand the principles of programming
-Good for applicability to problem-solving in daily life situations

>>61490816
You can't have a language that's easy to learn yet teaches you about the underlying principles of programming.
If you want something easy and applicable, learn Python.
If you want something that'll teach you how stuff works and is applicable, C.

>>61490816
python, python, python

>>61490816
1. C
2. C
3. Python

>inb4 C isn't easy to learn
The language itself is incredibly simple and only has a small standard library.