Iczelion's tutorials revisited.
in [ASM]
|
From: JGCASEY on 31 Aug 2005 04:37 Frank Kotler wrote: > [...] > > I've spent *no* time with Windows documentation, > so the clock hasn't even started ticking for me :) > > >> So what kind of programs do you write these days? > > > "Hello World" for Linux, mostly - not literally > "Hello World", but nothing too advanced. I suppose > I'm "learning" the Linux API, a little bit at a time. I gave some serious thought about using Linux. For practical and time reasons I have decided so far it will be more productive and practical to stick to Windows/DOS. Better to do one thing well, or at least as best I can, than two things badly. Of course Java works on both machines. > [...] > > >> When I saw the FASM example I thought cool, I >> wonder how hard that would be? > > > Well, it doesn't look too bad. Can you get it to > "work", as far as it goes? Yes it works fine. Scronty at the Win32Asm Community message board has an example connecting three webcams. There is also a DLL written in C but can apparently be used by any other language to access a webcam. http://robinhewitt.com/mavis/index.html The demo also works on my computer but I don't know how to actually access it via a DLL as I have only used C and Assembler with DOS so far. There is the option of using Java but I haven't got that far yet. > I think I mentioned that I sponged a USB camera, > so that I could "follow along", maybe learn how > to do it in Linux... When I went to plug it in, I > find I haven't *got* a USB port on this machine! > (thought I did...) So that's not going to be > happening... unless I can figure out what happened > to the parallel-port camera I *used* to have... > I still find the project "interesting". If you can find the old ccd monochrome Connectix QuickCam (taken over by LogiTech) you will find that easy to interface to the parallel port. My software however is for DOS not Linux. Best, John
From: Betov on 31 Aug 2005 05:28 "JGCASEY" <jgkjcasey(a)yahoo.com.au> ýcrivait news:1125444014.546353.194190 @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > Ok. Enough of the questions. Just one last thing > about the pop up window tuts. I like a 'module' > of information per page without scrolling. I find > it easier to read if the whole screen of data is > there for the viewing without having to scroll. Not sure what you are talking about, here... These Tutorial are, so to say, "3 shots": 1) You load the Tut from the Help Menu, and you see the whole Tutorial materials' Source, in RosAsm Source Editor, like any other Source. 2) Then you hit [F6], and the Tut is runing with two windows: The Tutorial Dialog, and... 3) the grayed Edit, with the "final" Source of the explained Parts, that you can execute from this window's Menu. [These Tuts can "execute" two ways: a) Run the Tutorial // b) Run the example]. If you are talking of the inconvenient of having to scroll in the "Tutorial Dialog" (the one with the four Buttons), to read the explanations, removing this ScrollBar would imply having each separated "explanation" fitting into one window size... What would be rather... short... Not sure if this is what you really mean... Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Betov on 31 Aug 2005 05:33 "Alex McDonald" <alex_mcd(a)btopenworld.com> ýcrivait news:1125439703.040898.298430(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > Betov wrote: >> "f0dder" <f0dder_nospam(a)flork.dk.invalid> ýcrivait news:4314c3ae$0$177 >> $edfadb0f(a)dtext01.news.tele.dk: >> >> >> I have never heard of any "Standard Out" in any actual OS. >> > >> > GetStdHandle(Parameters: nStdHandle) >> >> Don't joke me, please. I am serious when saying >> that there is no room, in a modern OS, for any >> "Standard" thingie. >> >> >> Betov. >> >> < http://rosasm.org > > > Are you being serious here? Or is _this_ meant as a joke? No joke, here, Troll. I am used to know of the Demos i release at my own pages, mind you. Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Betov on 31 Aug 2005 05:56 Herbert Kleebauer <klee(a)unibwm.de> ýcrivait news:4314E886.9D85E836 @unibwm.de: > Ok, I will repeat it in short and simple sentences: > > If you write a program (doesn't matter whether you write in > assembler or a HLL), then there is a part which is OS independent > (like a numerical calculation or the conversion of an assembler > source line into the binary opcode) and a part which is OS > dependent (display graphics, get keyboard and mouse input etc.). > > Now, the first part I would call (assembly or C) "programming" > whereas the second part doesn't deserve the name "programming", > it is nothing but a sequence of calls to the OS. The complete > thing can be called programming if the first part is at least > of the same magnitude as the second part. If you implement > the below program in DOS, than this can be called programming > because only a few lines of code are necessary to do the OS calls. > But if you implement it as a Windows program (and believe me, > there is a stdin and stdout in Windows) then part 2 gets much > bigger than part 1, so the whole thing doesn't deserve the > name "programming". Sorry, but i am not yet completely senile: 1) You say that Win32 Asm is not Asm, because it calls to Api Functions. 2) I ask you in what term Win32 C could be C, and why. 3) You answer BlaBla, without any head not tail. If Win32 C is C, there is no reason why Win32 Asm could not be Asm. Period. Your conception of Asm is deprived of any kind of interrest in the very discussion. You are a man of logic. A man of _excessive_ logic, i would say. Well OK to me, but, at least, don't twist the logic in the Randall Hyde manner when the arguments do no more please your _taste_. >> > If >> > you only need a few dozen lines of assembler code for the >> > core program, then most of the source file is win32 overhead. >> > But if a real application, written in a HLL, has many thousands >> > of lines, then the win32 stuff maybe is acceptable. >> >> ???!!!... RosAsm Source, that is 3 Megas long calls >> for about one hundread of Api Functions. > > RosAsm is written in assembler because it's author isn't > able to recognize the advantage of HLLs for implementing > larger applications. Larger than 3 Megas of Asm Code... :))))))) >> ... And then???!!!... >> DOS is dead since ages. > > You don't need DOS6.2 or older, Windows XP will execute this > program without any problem (or is XP also dead since ages?). Not here. I wrote tons of DOS Applications, and i can tell you that very few of them still work. Now, you can answer that i wrote them the wrong way, if you like. >> > When ever possible, I also use only standard IO in C programs, so >> > the program is OS independent and can be compiled with any C compiler >> > on any system (why do you think does an assembler need a GUI?). >> >> Feel free to believe in things that do not exist, if you >> like, but, to me, believing in something that does not exist >> is a mental disease. > > About which "things that do not exist" are you speaking here? All of the C mythology: * Portability: Yes, it exists,.. if you do nothing. * Modularity: Yes, you can reuse Code if you want bloat. * Standard thingies: Unfortunately there is no such a thing in any modern OS. [and don't joke me with the Console Functions]. >> I have payed to know that PEs are more complicated than >> .com, but i fail to see why this would make them "awful". >> "More complex" is not "awfull". > > I'm not speaking about the structure of a PE file compared > to a com file, _YES_, you were talking about you loading a PE in an Hexa Editor. Read your own above post. :( > but about the Win32 API compared to the > int21 interface. This one is 100% _normal_. If you want a Mousy Menu, under DOS, you have, say, at least 10 or twenty Pages of Source to write. With Win32, it is _WAY_ easier. So, the fact that Functions offering thousands and thousands of way more advanced functionalities, be more sophisticated than a primitive dead OS is nothing surprising, and the fact that you refuse sternely to follow-up, has nothing to do in the story. >> > Assembly programming is programming the >> > CPU (which is completely independent of the used OS) and not >> > learning an awful OS API. >> >> Try to teach DOS without calling for any Int. > > One page is sufficient to explain anything necessary to > start assembly programming in DOS (fopen, fclose, getc, putc, > test and read keyboard, get mouse position, switch to graphics > mode). Try the same with the Win32 API. Ridicoulous claim, with no base. One line is enough, in Win32 Asm to output a complex thing like a MessageBox. Try to do: call 'USER32.MessageBoxA' &NULL, {'How are you?', 0}, {'Message', 0}, &MB_OK .... in Dos. And be prepared for around 40 Pages of very complex Source. Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Betov on 31 Aug 2005 06:53
"Alex McDonald" <alex_mcd(a)btopenworld.com> ýcrivait news:1125485155.593326.211830(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: > But I know one end of an OS from another, have worked on the > internals of one, supported code on several others, been a programmer > for a sizable chunk of my life, written several sizable assembler apps, > studied performance of OS and apps under a variety of conditions, and > know the value of stdin/out/err You can simulate understanding that i am talking about the Console Functions, if you find this funny, Troll, but, as for you having "written several sizable assembler apps"... .... Which i can see... where, Troll? Betov. < http://rosasm.org > |