TMA Assembler?
in [ASM]
|
Prev: Reversing bit order in delphi ? (unmoderated)
Next: Linux / Windows GUI application with assembly
From: Betov on 22 Oct 2006 17:06 "randyhyde(a)earthlink.net" <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net> ?crivait news:1161533852.284391.112080(a)e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com: > The fact is, you *still* don't know the difference Clown, you should moderate your arrogancy level: This rather boring. Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Betov on 22 Oct 2006 17:10 "randyhyde(a)earthlink.net" <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net> ?crivait news:1161533852.284391.112080(a)e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com: > Exactly what can the FASM Macro System do that HLA can't compete with? Clown, the day you will do one tenth of the things that have effectively outputted with FASM, with your absurd HLL Pre-Parser, you will begin to look like "something". Instead of duping yourself with illusions, you should take a look on the ongoing threads, sometimes. Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Frank Kotler on 22 Oct 2006 18:08 Annie wrote: > > On 2006-10-22 Frank Kotler said: > > > Evenbit wrote: > > > > > I wonder where the lower > > > portion of this character file is: > > > > > > http://home.comcast.net/~fbkotler/annie2.jpg > > > > Annie made me promise not to post those. > > I should probably update that photo, Frank. I'm MUCH > cuter now. Hehe! Gravity hasn't taken hold yet, eh? Old enough now, too, I'll bet. Send the 18 USC 1157 info with the picture! > > Evidence of how symbol-oriented the human mind is, that we can > > become physically aroused by ascii text! > > But then, dweeby programmer nerds can become aroused > at the mere thought of a dried apricot. Sure, but we prefer a moist apricot. Prefer flesh nipples to pixels. Even fauxtoshopped nipples are better than ascii nipples. But we'll take what we can get. > You guys need to get out more. Hehehe! Never enough. L, P, &H, Frank
From: randyhyde@earthlink.net on 22 Oct 2006 18:21 Betov wrote: > "randyhyde(a)earthlink.net" <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net> écrivait > news:1161533309.212762.69870(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > > First of all, you may get beginners to RosAsm, but they're rarely > > beginners to assembly. > > Eughhh.. you know more than i do, clown. You've finally figured this out? :-) > > And you are surprised? Yes, beginners *are* learning assembly language > > programming via HLA. > > How could this be possible, clown? Do you learn chineese > when travelling in Norway? I guess you could. I wouldn't know not actually having been to Norway nor having actually learned Chinese. What that comment has to do with anything involving this discussion is a good question, though. > > > And yes, as one would expect, they ask beginning > > questions. If you're not getting those same sorts of questions asked > > with RosAsm, that simply means that you're not getting many beginners. > > No, clown. This means that the questions, regulary asked > by your victims would be, in most case, absolutely > impossible with an Assembler, and particulary impossible > with an Assembler like RosAsm, Whatever you say. Make all the excuses you like. The fact that you're not getting beginning questions still speaks volumes. > that is there to show what > is going on, when your HLL Pre-Parser is there for obfuscating > Assembly. When the guys have the answers under their noses, > they don't ask the question, usually. Period. Uh-huh. > > > You should not infer from the lack of such questions that the beginners > > are simply figuring everything out for themselves and RosAsm is a great > > tool for beginners as a result. > > You should not infer from the questions of your victims, > anything else but the perfect demonstration of the real > failure case of your HLL Pre-Parser, clown. It's when they *stop* asking questions that one has to be worried. Because at that point, they've stopped trying to learn the subject. Make all the snide remarks you like, but the bottom line is that people asking questions about how to do things in HLA is a *very good* thing. Much to your annoyance, it means that people are learning assembly with HLA. I welcome and encourage people to ask all the questions they way. Whether *you* think those questions are stupid is irrelevant. When they get their questions answered, they're that much more knowledgeable. And that's what matters. If you assume that they're not asking questions because "the answers are right under their noses (and they can figure it out for themselves)" then you're making some very incorrect assumptions about what people are learning with your own product. Cheers, Randy Hyde
From: randyhyde@earthlink.net on 22 Oct 2006 18:31
Betov wrote: > > > > A failure case involves someone who stops using the product and > > switches to another. Rosasm has its share of failure cases. Rosasm > > itself is a failure case. > > Yes? How is it that there are, actually several volunteers > developing it actively, then? If you count a half dozen or so developers as "successful", then you have a very limited notion of "success". That being said, RosAsm's failure is not denoted by the fact that people have used RosAsm and moved on to something else (which many RosAsm users have), but simply by the fact that so few people have bothered to invest the time to learn RosAsm at all. HLL Pre-Parser any "Macros > >> Symbolic Assembler". > > > > It doesn't matter what you want to call it. This is no discussion of > > implementation. It's a discussion of how the tools are used. HLA is a > > high level assembler, > > No. It is not any Assembler. HLA is a high-level assembler. Sorry, I did not invent that term. I certainly didn't write the first high-level assembler. Those types of products have been around since the late 1960s and IBM created their's in the 1980s. MASM and TASM, of course, became high-level assemblers in the 1990s. The truth is, you're behind the times. No doubt you'd love to have a product that is as feature rich as HLA, MASM, TASM, and IBM's HLAsm, but you simply don't have the ability to develop such a product. So rather than improve your own product to better compete with these higher-end products, you arbitrarily decide that any product with more features than your own is "not an assembler." Nice try, but it's not working. A high-level assembler, such as MASM, TASM, HLAsm, and HLA, is just as much of an assembler as a "macro" assembler. The only issue here is your inability to implement such a program yourself. > > > it does not pretend to be anything else. > > Yes. It pretends to be an Assembler, whereas it is not. Just as your product pretends to be an assembler, whereas it is not. > > > > Add yourself to the list of people who will never program in assembly. > > Rosasm sources are not written in assembly. Anyone how looks will see > > that it is a form of high-level assembly. > > Yes, it is, minion: Macro Assembly. And the Macros System > is so powerfull for HLL Constructs that there is little > difference with somer HLL Statements. And then? Yes, Rene, HLA is an assembly language: High-Level Assembly. And the high-level constructs are quite a bit more capable than the limited high-level constructs you try to simulate with your macros. That's why they were encoded directly into the assembler in the first place. And then? > > > The fact you fail to understand is that people will take the path of > > least resistance when they program. This means using features provided > > by their chosen assembler. It it has symbolic support, they will use > > symbols rather than relying on constant offsets. If it has macros, > > those will be used. If it has structure support, structures will be > > used. Etc. > > Nothing new, minion: ... and when they will have a real HLL > they will, as herbert says, use the HLL. Really nothing new. Yes, just as they use the HLL-like macros in RosAsm. Again, you're simply confusing the definition of a language with the implementation of that language. Whether you write those high-level like statements in a macro language or in a traditional language like C, the bottom line is that someone who uses those constructs are programming in a higher-level language, not in pure assembly language. The fact that you've encoded the statements within an interpretive language (i.e., your macro system) does not change this fact one iota. Cheers, Randy Hyde |