Someone quoted it.. Do you agree with that? (I agree with that

but i cannot compare because i do low-lewel (c language)

programming only whole of my life, so i really cannot

compare )

(if this is uninteresting topic please skip it, but maybe some

interesting thoughts will show)

"Good for the soul" is a bit subbjective, but if you enjoy low-level programming then yes, its all good.

There's a big difference between what we do for fun and what we bill for though. I'd feel bad charging a client for re-inventing a wheel but I might choose to spend my hobby time doing so if I feel like it.

I still find it amusing that people now consider C coding, low level.

C was the first high level language I used commercially, previously I used Forth for hobby jobs and assembler for work. Occasionally I did some work in Fortran, but not commercially.

Funny what a few decades does.

I agree with the subjective bit. I know some programmers who can't stand low level programming work, and take the most pleasure from drawing things out as block diagrams and solving complex problems on paper. (If they could get away with it that is all they would do and then just pass things off to other programmers to actually code.)

Myself? I really enjoy studying clockwork and mechanical systems. Lately I've been doing a lot of reading on low level semiconductor fabrication that could be done in a home workshop setup. That I think would be really fun to tinker with.

As far as actual code goes, it really depends on what I'm doing and what kind of time frames I have to work with. Sometimes I much rather just import a few libraries in python and route a few inputs and outputs around between modules to solve the problem I need now, rather than spend the extra time writing a far more graceful and efficient solution to the problem.

I still find it amusing that people now consider C coding, low level.

C was the first high level language I used commercially, previously I used Forth for hobby jobs and assembler for work. Occasionally I did some work in Fortran, but not commercially.

Funny what a few decades does.

c is low level becouse i am very conscious on memory layout and also

a big part of 'code layout' and its timings when coding in c (also algorithms i find are machine conscious) On the other side c has

traits of high level languages too, can code more abstract or general solutions/api in this (but c is 'machine conscious' and i can find this

as a definition of low level programming)

but still im not quite sure what makes low-level such healthy for programmers soul, maybe the thing that at low level you can be sure, you done a things really good, (down to the sillicon)

Though on the script level you probably can get satisfaction too..

or not? i am not sure (As i said i was never doing h-level more than

ocassional few hours)

Other thing that there is low level and lov level 2, love level 3 etc

;/ (on different platforms) for example i do not find x86 lowlevel so pleasurable, [So if so i could doubt if this statement is true, maybe more valuable is beauty and logic of the platform ?]

"Whatever Floats Your Boat" would be my response to this.

I only attempt low level if I want to become suicidal .

c is low level

It's relative. Wikipedia says it better than I can:

The terms high-level and low-level are inherently relative. Some decades ago, the C language, and similar languages, were most often considered "high-level", as it supported concepts such as expression evaluation, parameterised recursive functions, and data types and structures, while assembly language was considered "low-level". Today, many programmers might refer to C as low-level, as it lacks a large runtime-system (no garbage collection, etc.), basically supports only scalar operations, and provides direct memory addressing. It, therefore, readily blends with assembly language and the machine level of CPUs and microcontrollers.

Low-level programming is like wilderness camping. Some people enjoy it and find it recharging. Others avoid it like the plague and wonder what the point of progress is if you're going to eschew it and revert to primitivism.

Few will argue it's better, and those few rarely get invited to the more interesting parties.

You could say it was good for my soul in that learning assembly satisfied an intense curiosity in my life. I seem to remember as a kid I had a very intense desire to know how computers worked. People would tell me stuff like, "It's actually just a whole lot of switches." Well, I liked switches, they turned on lights and generally made cool things happen. How the hell do you put a bunch of these things together and get a computer? Well, come on, let's start collecting a bunch of switches and let's build us a computer. Between learning circuit design and assembly, my curiosity has been satisfied.

Not everybody has that same curiosity though and I'll probably never feel the need to program in assembly again.

Low-level programming is like wilderness camping. Some people enjoy it and find it recharging. Others avoid it like the plague and wonder what the point of progress is if you're going to eschew it and revert to primitivism.

Few will argue it's better, and those few rarely get invited to the more interesting parties.

Interesting thing, you cuggest that todays successive people are more

high-level likers ?

question: do the succesive people in todays game dev more low-level likers siders (most of them ? all?) or most of them are sceptic to low level?

I really got no idea, I dont even know to much succesive game devs

but the few I know (they are more experienced programmers than many other people i know) seem to be lov level likers - or at least they did it way back (they are some people winning assembly demoscene contests)