Significant Pure Assembler Application In MASM ?
in [ASM]
|
Prev: aeBIOS Test Request
Next: CMOVcc vs. Jcc
From: //o//annabee on 6 Oct 2007 15:29 On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:50:21 +0200, Betov <betov(a)free.fr> wrote: > santosh <santosh.k83(a)gmail.com> �crivait news:fe8jka$bj8$1(a)aioe.org: > >> For numerical and multimedia work there is a real advantage. Also it's >> good for an assembler to keep up with it's target architecture and non >> fall behind like Windela, A86 and others > > > Oh, i have no doubt that 64-bit will become main stream, with times > going. What i fail to understand is the reason why the actual Assemblers > were so fast at upgrading, whereas, twenty years after the death of > DOS, there still exist a significative number of guys programming for > DOS, nowadays. Of course, it is quite easy to implement, but... what > for? You say "Multimedia"? Well, as if XMMX did not exist under Win32. > > If you compare the huge, and self-evident, progresses which were done > with the switch from DOS to flat mem PE-32, to the one of 32 to 64, > whereas no user no earth would ever notice any difference... this is > rather surprising. > > Personaly, as long as there did not even exist any plan for a ReactOS > 64-bit, i had absolutely no valid reason for implementing this stuff. > And now that there is no more any hope on ReactOS at all... 1) I am lazy 2) I want to experiement with 64 using RosAsm. 3) Wolfgangeclaims it has huge advantages. 4) If "reason" has anything todo with it, we would not be using computers. We would be realming the streets naked..,,,,,,,, :)) Admit it Ren�. Programming is such a stupid activity, it REQUIRES a geek todo it. Now shut up and go and implement 64 bit in RosAsm. What we all crave. > > Betov. > > < http://rosasm.org > > > >
From: santosh on 6 Oct 2007 15:40 //\\\\o//\\\\annabee wrote: [that visually attractive s/w is more successfull] > How else would _you_ explain the incredible success of windows? It was a combination of circumstances and clever marketing by MS. When Windows 95 came out, there was no real graphical OS for the PC. Linux and BSD were still in their early development and other UNIXes where targeted towards minicomputers and mainframes. Also keep in mind that much of commercial s/w development and computer usage, especially by lay people took place first in the USA and parts of Europe and only later on, percolated to the rest of the world. It so happens that the USA is "home territory" for Microsoft, so that fact enabled them to market their OS intensively, especially towards their target audience who didn't really know squat about computers, programming, and the existence of technically superior, if academic, alternatives. Of course by the time Linux was competitive enough, Windows had already achieved a suffocating monopoly on PCs. If anyone is to blame for this, it's Europe. Technically and scientifically Europe was, and is, close enough to the USA. Why did no one in Europe produce an alternative to Windows? Europe was the birthplace of modern science, but I'm surprised that they are not competing, (friendly), with the USA, but rather, meekly getting "assimilated" with it? The only place in the world that could have produced an alternative to Windows when the latter appeared was Europe. Unfortunately it didn't, and we had wait several more years for volunteer based Linux to grow and mature. >> I believe that Betov should do more work on the RosAsm _language_ >> rather than it's current implementation. If the language becomes >> attractive enough someone will implement it into the current >> implementation or produce a new one. > > I think the RosAsm lanuage is the best there is. I'm talking about improvements. The _only_ way to attract developers is to create a language that people want to use. If the language is good enough an implementation is bound to be written sooner or later. It's a fact that for some reason, or reasons, most assembler programmers are preferring languages like NASM, FASM, MASM, etc., to RosAsm. The RosAsm community must find out the reasons for this, (no, simply dismissing users of other assemblers as "not assembly programmers" doesn't count), and try to compete technically with these languages.
From: santosh on 6 Oct 2007 16:00 //\\\\o//\\\\annabee wrote: > On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:50:21 +0200, Betov <betov(a)free.fr> wrote: >> Oh, i have no doubt that 64-bit will become main stream, with times >> going. What i fail to understand is the reason why the actual >> Assemblers were so fast at upgrading, whereas, twenty years after the >> death of DOS, there still exist a significative number of guys >> programming for DOS, nowadays. Of course, it is quite easy to >> implement, but... what for? You say "Multimedia"? Well, as if XMMX >> did not exist under Win32. > 1) I am lazy > 2) I want to experiement with 64 using RosAsm. > 3) Wolfgangeclaims it has huge advantages. > 4) If "reason" has anything todo with it, we would not be using > computers. > > We would be realming the streets naked..,,,,,,,, In Norway? Do you want to catch your cold of death? :) > :)) > > Admit it Ren�. Programming is such a stupid activity, it REQUIRES a > geek todo it. Programming is logic. Applied logic is science. Science is a method to satisfy innate human curiosity. It's nothing to do with "geeks." People have been observing nature and seeking to understand it, and in the process, improve their lives, ever since the dawn of man. It's also an inert and externally propelled phenomena in lower organisms, through the combination of mutation and natural selection. Even religion is an effort to understand our existence. It's just that unlike science, it does requires blind faith and dispenses with empirical consistency. On the other hand it "explains" everything there is to explain in one stroke, while science moves towards that goal tortuously slowly. > Now shut up and go and implement 64 bit in RosAsm. What we all crave. Do you mean port RosAsm to 64-bits or enable 64-bit code generation? I think the former is unnecessary.
From: Charles Crayne on 6 Oct 2007 16:17 On 06 Oct 2007 07:48:22 GMT Betov <betov(a)free.fr> wrote: > Considering > the various actual ones, is there some probability for having, > later, a Processor emulating, by default, any other Processor > as supported by the main OSes, say, on a PC and a embeeded Phone? > (So that porting from here to there would no more exist). Technically possible, but economically unlikely. The current marketing requirements for chip design seem to be increasing the raw speed without a corresponding increase in power consumption. -- Chuck
From: Betov on 6 Oct 2007 16:30
santosh <santosh.k83(a)gmail.com> �crivait news:fe8obj$qtv$1(a)aioe.org: > It was a combination of circumstances and clever marketing by MS. When > Windows 95 came out, there was no real graphical OS for the PC. Wrong. Before the Windows oncoming, there was a great OS (written in Structured Assembly, by the way...), which was way better than Windows, at that time. The name was "GeoWorks Ensemble". The only reason why Windows kicked it out, was *marketing*. > Also keep in mind that much of commercial s/w development and computer > usage, especially by lay people took place first in the USA and parts > of Europe and only later on, percolated to the rest of the world. It > so happens that the USA is "home territory" for Microsoft, so that > fact enabled them to market their OS intensively, especially towards > their target audience who didn't really know squat about computers, > programming, and the existence of technically superior, if academic, > alternatives. > > Of course by the time Linux was competitive enough, Windows had > already achieved a suffocating monopoly on PCs. > > If anyone is to blame for this, it's Europe. How true. I am raging against this scandal. Though, the actual positions of governments, in Europe, may change. For example, to date the french deputees are provided with Linux Computers, after a strong lobbying of the Linux fanatics. Rather encouraging. > I'm talking about improvements. The _only_ way to attract developers > is to create a language that people want to use. If the language is > good enough an implementation is bound to be written sooner or later. This has never been verified. All the opposite: History shows that the worst possible choices have most often been the winners, like, for example, the so absurd victory of Pdf, of C, and so on... > It's a fact that for some reason, or reasons, most assembler > programmers are preferring languages like NASM, FASM, MASM, etc., to > RosAsm. The RosAsm community must find out the reasons for this, (no, > simply dismissing users of other assemblers as "not assembly > programmers" doesn't count), and try to compete technically with these > languages. The reason is perfectly known, and i never did anything for conforming to what most people expect to use. When proposing something innovative, there is no suprise at being rejected. This is perfectly normal. Scandalous, but expectable. Also, RosAsm never was in any form of competition with NASM nor FASM. NASM and FASM are not specificaly designed for PEs production. They are "General Purpose Assemblers". Using them for PEs productivity would be rather absurd. Betov. < http://rosasm.org > |