> the asm can't hide anything from you unless it's obfusticated.
I think that misses the point. It's not the case of the ASM hiding things, it's a case of the optimizing compiler erasing things.
Here's a simple example: You say "Ok, the time I need to wait is 30 minutes. This method takes seconds, so I'll send in 60 (seconds in a minute) * 30 (minutes). The compiler is free to take that and say "Oh hey, 60 * 30? I know that's simply 1800 so I'll put that there instead of adding the instructions for multiplication".
Trying to learn how something like that works from the ASM output would leave you confused trying to reason where that "1800" came from. It's not hidden, it's not obfuscated. It's simply optimized.
That's a simple example, but certainly not the end of the optimizations a compiler can apply. The ASM isn't lying, but it also isn't telling the whole picture. The very nature of optimizing compilers is to erase parts of the picture that's ultimately only there for programmers benefit.
That's true, but often the things it erases are what's confusing you. For instance, it can remove highly abstracted C++ templates and dead code. Or if you don't know what a construct does, you can compile code with and without it and see exactly what it does.
Often new programmers think asm/low level programming is scary, but because it's so predictable it's actually quite easy to work with… in small doses.
I think that misses the point. It's not the case of the ASM hiding things, it's a case of the optimizing compiler erasing things.
Here's a simple example: You say "Ok, the time I need to wait is 30 minutes. This method takes seconds, so I'll send in 60 (seconds in a minute) * 30 (minutes). The compiler is free to take that and say "Oh hey, 60 * 30? I know that's simply 1800 so I'll put that there instead of adding the instructions for multiplication".
Trying to learn how something like that works from the ASM output would leave you confused trying to reason where that "1800" came from. It's not hidden, it's not obfuscated. It's simply optimized.
That's a simple example, but certainly not the end of the optimizations a compiler can apply. The ASM isn't lying, but it also isn't telling the whole picture. The very nature of optimizing compilers is to erase parts of the picture that's ultimately only there for programmers benefit.