Structs in Assembly
in [ASM]
|
From: hutch-- on 21 Nov 2005 08:32 smile, > How sad... Yes, how sad that someone would see a crappy workaround as a substitute for a fundamental technique in programming. Now if your 4 meg balloon of garbage had the parsing power of MASM, it would be able to read a structure with nested structures and unions like MASM can but sad to say, BetovToy hasn't got the grunt to do it. The REAL PROBLEM is that Betov does not know how to program the data structures necessary to store the data to provide structure and union support so his user base (< 10) and without that support the best way is like it always was, dereferenced address with manually coded offsets for each member. Its exactly the capacity to build compound data types that make structures and unions so powerful, yet another reason why Betov does not comprehend the sheer brutal power of MASM. Ho Hum etc .... hutch at movsd dot com
From: randyhyde@earthlink.net on 21 Nov 2005 09:50 the-o/-/annabee wrote: > > If the HLA bible was extremly useful or interessting the way it is now, > there would be an AVALANCHE of post in the ng, and millions of HLA > supporters. In an earlier post, you countered Sevag by saying that there were probably two million programmers. So by this comment, you're claiming that HLA, at the very least, would have *every* programmer supporting it. Sorry, but no assembler, not even MASM (which is an order of magnitude [or two] more popular than HLA) comes close to this). > > I can spot one HLA programmer (sevag) and one Troll, and one sucker :) > If this is his "crop" from 5 00 000 hits, this will explain a lot. Oh, you expect HLA programmers to post around here? Sorry, but the RosAsm contingent around here have scared off most of the people actually interested in learning assembly language programming. And we're not simply talking about HLA here. For example, how many FASM programmers do you see posting around here? Or even MASM programmers? But you might visit CLAX sometime (wait! strike that thought!) You will see HLA programmers posting from time to time there. Where they are protected from the likes of you and Rene. Cheers, Randy Hyde
From: randyhyde@earthlink.net on 21 Nov 2005 09:52 Betov wrote: > > > Yes. This one another well known method of Master > Pdf who seems to apply the same tips&tricks as in > medias selling: Claimed success supposed to generates > real success. Does not seem to always work... > > :) Well, 6,000,000 hits or not, one thing is for sure -- RosAsm is a complete failure. And I'd rather have enough response to my product to be able to claim a modicum of success for it than to have a complete failure like the one you've got on your hands. :-)
From: randyhyde@earthlink.net on 21 Nov 2005 09:58 Betov wrote: > > Yeah yeah we have all heard this bullsh*t before but its still broken, > > cannot handle the BIG stuff like MASM can > > Oh!... MASM can handle BIGGER stuff than RosAsm. > Then, why do you write your Applications in Power > Basic? Non-sequitor. The fact that MASM is better than RosAsm (in all cases) in no way suggests that MASM is better than everything else in all cases. In some case, yes, PowerBASIC is probably better than MASM. Meaning, of course, that PowerBASIC is a better choice that RosAsm in those cases (and probably many more), too. > > How is it that, when i challenge you to compare > the speed of RosAsm to MASM's one, with middle > size Applications (not even big size Apps...), Been there, done that. At the latest revision I've tested, the speeds of MASM and RosAsm are roughly comparable. And FASM is about 2.5x faster than RosAsm. You really have nothing to crow about here. > you have nothing to compare with?... and have > no other answer but absurd artificial synthetic > Sources, built on purpose, to show the resverse > of all known facts... Sure. You say this about anything that disproves your ridiculous claims. Why are we not surprised? If your assembler were really so fast, why can't it handle those "synthetic" programs, too? It's not like the benchmarks I've created pound on one particularly slow feature in your assembler. We're talking straight machine-language instructions here. It was not possible to do anything fancy, because RosAsm was either incapable (feature-wise) of handling the fancy stuff, or it crashed on the fancy stuff. So you are quite right, those benchmarks were *very* synthetic, consisting mainly of machine instructions and equates because RosAsm couldn't handle much more than that. And if the speed of your assembler isn't that hot handling basic machine instructions, you've got some performance problems to address. Cheers, Randy Hyde
From: randyhyde@earthlink.net on 21 Nov 2005 10:00
the-o/-/annabee wrote: > > Before I learned to program in > asm with RosAsm, I had actually only a vage understanding of > structures. Once seen their true nature, and understood the job they > really do, and beeing able to replace them using equates, I feel > empowered (in my understanding). Your structures are, if not the worst > things, a tool for alienation of people. >From the guy whose only "knowledge" of structures comes from RosAsm :-) Yes, you're proving your point quite strongly here. Cheers, Randy Hyde |