Significant Pure Assembler Application In MASM ?
in [ASM]
|
Prev: aeBIOS Test Request
Next: CMOVcc vs. Jcc
From: hutch-- on 8 Oct 2007 13:15 Big smile etc ... > 100% of the pioneers of the Assembly Rebirth had one and single > purpose, which was to create Applications under Win32. This is simply bullsh*t from someone who was not there at the time. Not only that but no-one you knew was there either. Remember that the stuff you are referring to was published in MASM in 1997, 3 to 4 years before you appeared in Iczelion's old forum. > Test Departement, > or Iczelion, spent so much efforts at Demos about how to create > a ToolBar, a ListView, a Media-Player, or whatever else. They wrote tutorials exclusively for the MASM32 Project and wrote them in MASM. Also note that both Iczelion and myself were working on win32 assembler 18 months before TD started his tutorials. > with your Power-Basic production? Still sobbing about PowerBASIC ? Its a far better assembler that yours. > The very first one who pushed this Rebirth to the collapse has > been you, with your stolen MicroSoft C-Side Toy, which was > evidently not the proper tool for the job. Still trying to hide your theft of ASM32 from Intelligent Firmware ? Your rebirth is a fantasy, assembler programming was alive and well years before you cobbled your crapheap together and it was all done in MASM.
From: Betov on 8 Oct 2007 13:25 "rhyde(a)cs.ucr.edu" <rhyde(a)cs.ucr.edu> �crivait news:1191862598.232372.317580(a)50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com: > The bottom line is that they *didn't* write these applications you > talk about. Right, clown. They did *not* wrote Applications, as it was 100% predictable, with a toy like MASM. That being said, you will, like Hutch, have a big problem with this wall of reality, which is that 100% of the Assembly Rebirth efforts never had any purpose but to write Applications in Assembly, as demonstrated by any Demos Set delivered by any of these these pioneers, whithout which, nowadays, you wouldn't even exist, but as an old nerd still nicely sleeping on his DOS laurels. Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Betov on 8 Oct 2007 13:30 Gilles Chehade <veins(a)evilkittens.org> �crivait news:slrnfgk3np.61.veins(a)evilkittens.org: > Oh yeah, I apologize as I did misread while making a confusion about you > and your friend throwing flowers at the GPL ;-) Sorry, but i don't understand if you are joking or not. In case you would be in some ironical mode, you have to know that i spent a significative part of my life at working full time for a GPLed Project (10 years), and that it is possibly not over, if my health goes well. Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Betov on 8 Oct 2007 13:33 "randyhyde(a)earthlink.net" <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net> �crivait news:1191862858.697772.199240(a)r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > Perhaps if FASM compiled HLA code, you would have a point :)) Is not HLA now self-compilable, clown? If so, as long as your HLL Pre-Parser does nothing but obfuscating the FASM, how could it be that FASM would not compile HLA, at the end? Explain, please: This is too funny. :) Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: santosh on 8 Oct 2007 13:43
Betov wrote: > "randyhyde(a)earthlink.net" <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net> �crivait > news:1191862858.697772.199240(a)r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > >> Perhaps if FASM compiled HLA code, you would have a point > > :)) > > Is not HLA now self-compilable, clown? No. HLA 1.xx is written in C with small amounts of Bison and, I think, a single file in HLA. > If so, as long as your HLL Pre-Parser does nothing but obfuscating the > FASM, how could it be that FASM would not compile HLA, at the end? The FASM inside HLA bears only little resemblance to FASM as distributed at it's author's website. It has been converted into HLA syntax and some algorithmic and structural modifications have been made, which, IIRC, Randy claims, sped up it's performance considerably. The HLA front-end compiles HLA source into FASM source which the "embedded" FASM then translates to executable machine code. HLA -----> FASM ------> Binary GCC -----> GAS ------> Binary The difference of course is GCC cannot compile assembly language while HLA claims to do so. |