This book takes a bit of a different angle on explaining computers. I really enjoy the history.

My only complaint would be that I think he has a Microsoft bias (but then I guess I am biased myself).

And similarly, I have a minor annoyance with the OP's mention of Linux, and only Linux, when he touches on calling conventions. This bias toward one system, and ignorance of others, is typical of many websites and documentation. To be fair, the OP mostly avoids it.

To be clear, great explanations of computers to me are ones that either:

   1) take great care to stay completely neutral and only discuss universally shared traits across systems,

   2) go to great lengths to try to be as comprehensive as possible, including many systems and all their commonalities and idiosyncracies, or

   3) focus only on one system and go into great detail how it works.

Petzold pays ample attention to Morse code and similar succinct ways of communicating information. In my opinion this type of focus is the mark of a skilled coder. When I look at the entries to IOCC, it is no surprise to me that Morse code is (or at least was) a frequent focus of the entrants.

How could they ever understand "simple and easy"? Their concept of simple is not based in reality.

There seems to be this idea (I wish it had a name) that one can just apply a new abstraction layer and the lower layers magically disappear or are rendered insignifcant.

And of course producing 100's or 1000's of pages of "documentation". This is disrespectful toward the reader's time. The best documentation is and will always be the source code. If I cannot read that, then for my purposes there is no documentation.

This is not to say some of these old new thing higher-level of abstraction solutions do not work well or are not easy to use or do not look great. Many people love them, I'm sure. But until I see more common sense being applied it is just not worth my time to learn. I would rather focus on more basic skills that I know will always be useful.

I'm naive but curious and I do not want to make guesses.

I wonder how are we going to preserve knowledge about programming from first principles if, under pressure from corporations and lazy peers, no one does it anymore?

When I use that term I envision simple filters that take ASCII input, maybe even some sort of "template", and transform it into some other format that's useful. Ideally, asm. But not always.

For example, in GCC, for x86, there's a couple of programs that operate on i386-opc.tbl and i386-reg.tbl. I would not call them "code generators" but I suspect they are needed in order for "gcc -s" to work.