汇编编程比高级语言(如c)花费更长的时间，更难编程，这似乎是一种主流观点。因此，出于这些原因以及更好的可移植性，似乎建议或假设用高级语言编写更好。
最近我一直在用x86汇编语言写作，我开始意识到这些原因可能都不是真的，除了可移植性。也许这更多的是一个熟悉的问题，知道如何写好汇编。我还注意到在汇编中编程与在HLL中编程有很大的不同。也许一个好的、有经验的汇编程序员可以像一个有经验的C程序员用C写程序一样轻松、快速地编写程序。
也许是因为汇编编程与hll有很大的不同，因此需要不同的思维、方法和方式，这使得对不熟悉的人编写程序看起来非常尴尬，因此给汇编编程带来了不好的名声。
如果可移植性不是问题，那么C语言比NASM这样的优秀汇编器有什么优势呢?
编辑: 我只是想指出。当你用汇编语言写作时，你不必只写指令代码。您可以使用宏、过程和您自己的约定来进行各种抽象，使程序更模块化、更可维护、更易于阅读。这就是熟悉如何编写好的汇编的原因。
当前回答
浏览这些答案，我敢打赌9/10的回复者从未使用过组装。
这是一个经常出现的老问题，你得到的答案都是一样的，而且大多是错误的答案。如果不是为了便携性，我仍然会自己组装所有的东西。即便如此，我还是用C编写代码，就像用汇编一样。
其他回答
除了其他人对可读性、可维护性、更短的代码从而更少的错误和更简单的回答之外，我还将添加一个额外的原因:
程序的速度。
Yes, in assembly you can hand tune your code to make use of every last cycle and make it as fast as is physically possible. However who has the time? If you write a not-completely-stupid C program, the compiler will do a really good job of optimizing for you. Probably making at least 95% of the optimizations you'd do by hand, without you having to worry about keeping track of any of it. There's definitely a 90/10 kind of rule here, where that last 5% of optimizations will end up taking up 95% of your time. So why bother?
可移植性始终是一个问题——如果不是现在，至少最终是这样。编程行业每年花费数十亿美元移植旧软件，这些软件在编写时“显然”没有任何可移植性问题。
与高级语言相比，ASM的易读性很差，而且实际上难以维护。
此外，ASM开发人员比其他更流行的语言(如C)要少得多。
此外，如果您使用高级语言，并且有新的ASM指令可用(例如SSE)，您只需要更新您的编译器，您的旧代码就可以轻松使用新的指令。
如果下一个CPU有两倍多的寄存器呢?
这个问题的反义词是:编译器提供了什么功能?
我怀疑你能够/想要/应该比gcc -O3更好地优化你的ASM。
随着汇编变得越来越不常见，出现了一个恶性循环:随着高级语言的成熟，汇编语言指令集的构建越来越少地是为了方便程序员，而更多地是为了方便编译器。
So now, realistically, it may be very hard to make the right decisions on, say, which registers you should use or which instructions are slightly more efficient. Compilers can use heuristics to figure out which tradeoffs are likely to have the best payoff. We can probably think through smaller problems and find local optimizations that might beat our now pretty sophisticated compilers, but odds are that in the average case, a good compiler will do a better job on the first try than a good programmer probably will. Eventually, like John Henry, we might beat the machine, but we might seriously burn ourselves out getting there.
Our problems are also now quite different. In 1986 I was trying to figure out how to get a little more speed out of small programs that involved putting a few hundred pixels on the screen; I wanted the animation to be less jerky. A fair case for assembly language. Now I'm trying to figure out how to represent abstractions around contract language and servicer policy for mortgages, and I'd rather read something that looks close to the language that the business folks speak. Unlike LISP macros, Assembly macros don't enforce much in the way of rules, so even though you might be able to get something reasonably close to a DSL in a good assembler, it'll be prone to all sorts of quirks that won't cause me problems if I wrote the same code in Ruby, Boo, Lisp, C# or even F#.
如果您的问题很容易用高效的汇编语言来表达，那么您的能力就更强了。
我相信有很多原因，但我能想到的两个原因是
汇编代码肯定更难读(我肯定编写它也更耗时) 当您有一个庞大的开发团队在开发一个产品时，将代码划分为逻辑块并通过接口进行保护是很有帮助的。
