The less bytes i have, the more I can read, understant and ** trust ** the code.
not really, the assembler of sparc for instance is quite different from the powerpc assembler, and each and every processor in a processor family has special features... you can't know them all and the average programmer can't know them all. The average compiler can get out of average C code better assembler code than the average assembler programmer. Of course the best Compiler cannot even get close to what the best assembler programmer can do, but you know... there is always something worst than badly compiled C code... what about java or python, or .net/mono??
Ha. Sure. The point about assembler is that you can't trust something that build code for you unless you checked the toolchain from A ot Z. That's the point with LFS (linux from scratch) which rebuild the toolchain from sources. As you can check the source for sanity, you can trust the output.
Crux is source based distro. The toolchain should be recompiled before the kernel. It is maybe a bit insane but for a source based distro, it would be really nice to be reentrant ;)
And for any serious programmer, reading, understanding and writing assembly code is a must have skill. This might sound wrong with Java, python whatever but it helps understanding how a computer work and why those languages are 'slow' against C or well written assembler. After that we enter in the realm of how many usefull line of code you can write per hour... Not much in asm. Let's go for something faster to write : C!
Future is embedding and power saving. Power saving starts with lowering memory footprint : switching bit costs power. Thus, saving every bytes makes my battery stay (a bit) longer.
IMHO power saving is not so directly tied to memory footprint as you claim, anyway i agree with you on stripping down bloat, but unfortunately the rest of the world doesn't seem to think in the same way... java, oracle, web2.0, hald dbus, that's all bloat, and unfortunately it's taking more and more over... and guess what? everyone has economical interests in that, so it's hard to fight that...
Being counter stream is good. And stripping bloat is good too. Stripping bloat is counter stream? :)
Doing thing with less is good. I was used to Amiga computer : efficient design. They did something reactive with a 7Mhz CPU, 512Kb RAM and hardwired display processor (blitter, copper) more than 20 years ago. And nowdays, when I see how a 400Mhz PowerPC doing a rough 700Mips coupled with a radeon 9250 react badly to user input, I feel a bit depressed.
Developer should work on outdated hardware with slow processor and not much memory. This would help to have efficient code and design that fly everywhere with stripped bloat out of the box.