TMA Assembler?
in [ASM]
|
Prev: Reversing bit order in delphi ? (unmoderated)
Next: Linux / Windows GUI application with assembly
From: randyhyde@earthlink.net on 19 Oct 2006 10:35 KiLVaiDeN wrote: > > Hello, > > First of all, I think that you must be a little bit stupid Ah, another Rene-in-training, I see. > ( let's hope > i'm wrong ) going for HLA while coming from a C background. And what's so "stupid" about that. The whole point of HLA was to provide an assembly language whose syntax is familiar to HLL programmers, such as C programmers. There's less to learn and digest when the non-machine-language components of the language have a syntax that is similar to what the programmer is already used to. > What's the > sense of all his ? Perhaps he wants to learn assembly language programmer faster and easier than using the alternatives. > When you program in C, specially under Linux, you > can produce ASM. ??? Perhaps the compiler can produce assembly language, the C programmer does not. Further, if you're suggesting that the OP learn to write assembly language the way a compiler produces it, well, that would be worthless. You may as well stick with C at that point. > Real ASM. Not HLA. Another person who thinks he knows what "real assembly language" is, eh? Well, let me simply suggest that if you think the output of a C compiler is what people would normally consider "real assembly language" then you really don't understand the benefit of manually writing assembly language code (though this is pretty obvious from your other posts, I might point out). > So why learn HLA ? Because it's faster and easier, and there's a lot more pedagogy available for HLA than most other assemblers. > It'll be > hundreds times more usefull if you'd learn directly ASM, as you'd be > able to parallel your knowledge of C with the produced ASM code. Explain how learning the HLA assembly language doesn't allow you to parallel your knowledge of C with the produced ASM code. A machine instruction is a machine instruction. And HLA supports them all. How does a MOV instruction in Gas differ from a MOV instruction in MASM, TASM, FASM, NASM, or HLA? Yes, the syntax of every one of these assemblers is different from the others, but once you've learned how to use a MOV instruction, the human-readable syntax is irrelevant. It's the semantics that count, not the syntax. If the syntax can be designed to make it easier to learn the semantics, so much the better. > > Besides it seems you are here to flame Betov. Which he rightly deserves. You seem to be here to flame HLA. What's the difference? > Well, at least he > provides tools and proved he is a real ASM coder, What is a "real ASM coder?" Why does it really matter? Indeed, Rene *only* knows assembly language. This limited knowledge *hurts*, not helps, his cause. And anyone who has taken a careful look at the simplistic assembly language code he writes generally won't be impressed by his assembly code, unless they're also down at that unsophsticated level. > producing a real > Assembler. Real assemblers support static linkage. Toy assemblers compile in-memory source files. RosAsm might be "real" in the sense that it is an actual product that a *few* people use, but the truth is that it's one of the weakest *assemblers* around. The RosAsm crowd tries to argue that it's not just the assembler, but the editor, debugger, (broken) disassembler, etc., that make up the "assembler", but the truth is that the *assembler* component of RosAsm is very weak. If you are impressed by RosAsm's (the assembler) capabilities, that simply demonstrates your lack of in-depth knowledge of other products. > This said, I think that you should keep quiet, Physician, heal thyself! > including > about your racist comments concerning Betov's english, Uh, language has little or nothing to do with racism. Now had he started calling Rene some term associated with Rene's skin color/race, then it would have been a racist remark. > because it only > makes you look more stupid than you already look like. You might look in the mirror. Confusing a natural language with race doesn't make one look especially intelligent. > > Have fun with HLA, which will be useless for you, well, unless for you > being a C programmer means doing some printf on the screen; You'll be > happy because you'll be able to do the same in HLA !! But then don't > dream about "knowing C" or "knowing ASM". Prove that point. Cheers, Randy Hyde
From: randyhyde@earthlink.net on 19 Oct 2006 10:35 Betov wrote: > > You are right with pointing to this, clown: > > Your future victims should, indeed, take a serious > look at the messages posted at those places, and > to compare with the ones seen at various Assembly > Boards. This is indeed much intructive. How would you know? Cheers, Randy Hyde
From: KiLVaiDeN on 19 Oct 2006 11:41 > randyhyde(a)earthlink.net wrote: > > > > First of all, I think that you must be a little bit stupid > > Ah, another Rene-in-training, I see. I wish I was as good as Rene in ASM, but there is still some way to go, and I actually don't even expect matching his skills; I admit his posts are often violent and he has a strong personnality, but when you understand what he defends, I think it's normal. I've once posted about his wiki page being "viciously" edited, by people from California. That's an EXAMPLE of what I saw, and an exemple that would explain such vigor in his comments. > > ( let's hope > > i'm wrong ) going for HLA while coming from a C background. > > And what's so "stupid" about that. The whole point of HLA was to > provide an assembly language whose syntax is familiar to HLL > programmers, such as C programmers. There's less to learn and digest > when the non-machine-language components of the language have a syntax > that is similar to what the programmer is already used to. I won't argue with _YOU_ about _HLA_, because you _ARE_ HLA :) It's your main "business", and my word is perfectly fitting. Let me explain what I meant : What's the damn point about going from C to HLA, while HLA provides similar ( but less complete ) syntax, and while C includes inline assembly capabilities ? Tell me why is HLA needed when in fact C is already a HLA² ? ( note the square ) > > What's the > > sense of all his ? > > Perhaps he wants to learn assembly language programmer faster and > easier than using the alternatives. I'm sorry, but my whole point is there. Learning assembly with pre-written functions and classes, is like learning C with a visual editor. You don't learn how to code with a visual editor, you just copy and paste elements on the screen, and have no clue of what's done under the hood. HLA is somehow the same, I've seen your book and I know what I'm talking about. > > When you program in C, specially under Linux, you > > can produce ASM. > > ??? > Perhaps the compiler can produce assembly language, the C programmer > does not. Further, if you're suggesting that the OP learn to write > assembly language the way a compiler produces it, well, that would be > worthless. You may as well stick with C at that point. That's not what I meant. What I meant is that the GNU C compiler can output ASM code; therefore learning how the REAL asm code works, enables a C programmer to understand the output of their own C programs, and that's the power someone learning ASM when coming from a C background is looking for. > > Real ASM. Not HLA. > > Another person who thinks he knows what "real assembly language" is, > eh? > Well, let me simply suggest that if you think the output of a C > compiler is what people would normally consider "real assembly > language" then you really don't understand the benefit of manually > writing assembly language code (though this is pretty obvious from your > other posts, I might point out). I perfectly know the difference between a hand coded ASM source, and a compiler produced one. The difference is the automation in one case, and the intelligence in the other. Being able to add intelligence to the automation enables for fabulous power over the generated binary, which can then be furtherly optimized when needed or debugged. > > So why learn HLA ? > > Because it's faster and easier, and there's a lot more pedagogy > available for HLA than most other assemblers. I think HLA is good, for TOTAL beginners, who know nothing about any programming languages. For people like the OP, who know how to code in C ( well i'm assuming something that is probably false, but it's for the example ) it's quite useless, because it's just an "intermediate" step before learning the real assembly. I hope you don't believe people would code in HLA ? Well I've read your book as I said earlier, you give HLA source code all along, but I believe you still are aware that the people who program in HLA will quickly discover that coding in C or in ASM directly is much more profitable for both knowledge and capabilities. I've seen no work on the market who asks for "HLA expertise" but for C or ASM it exists. > > It'll be > > hundreds times more usefull if you'd learn directly ASM, as you'd be > > able to parallel your knowledge of C with the produced ASM code. > > Explain how learning the HLA assembly language doesn't allow you to > parallel your knowledge of C with the produced ASM code. A machine > instruction is a machine instruction. And HLA supports them all. How > does a MOV instruction in Gas differ from a MOV instruction in MASM, > TASM, FASM, NASM, or HLA? Yes, the syntax of every one of these > assemblers is different from the others, but once you've learned how to > use a MOV instruction, the human-readable syntax is irrelevant. It's > the semantics that count, not the syntax. If the syntax can be designed > to make it easier to learn the semantics, so much the better. I explained it already upper; HLA is a layer over ASM, and as long as C Compiler don't produce HLA "assembly"... It's useless for a C programmer to understand and master HLA. You are telling that HLA is like others assemblers, but then tell me why do you include ALL THE TIME in your book, source code using your own library of functions, and not providing routines or algorithms only using the assembly directives ? Just take a look at your book, Volume 3 and Volume 4 ( which are the main volumes of how a language works, the first 2 ones are closer to the machine, and somehow I must admit there is some usefull pedagogy on there ) and tell me : what does all this have to do with assembly ? How using your library IO functions, TRYCATCH functions or RECORDS, is anything related to assembly ? It's for sure good for you that you could produce such a rich language; But it's not assembly programming. What would have been good, is that you provide for each one of your functions, a second chapter in REAL ASM to do the SAME TASK. That'd be Assembly, and not only HLA, and I wouldn't be so picky about you claiming that HLA is yet another Assembler. It ain't. > > Besides it seems you are here to flame Betov. > > Which he rightly deserves. > You seem to be here to flame HLA. What's the difference? I give my reasons for flaming HLA. Don't misunderstand me, I have nothing against the Ran
From: Betov on 19 Oct 2006 12:05 "randyhyde(a)earthlink.net" <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net> ?crivait news:1161268512.092909.260060(a)m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com: > And what's so "stupid" about that. The whole point of HLA was to > provide an assembly language whose syntax is familiar to HLL > programmers, such as C programmers. There's less to learn and digest > when the non-machine-language components of the language have a syntax > that is similar to what the programmer is already used to. Clown, the high level assembler existed long before your absurd Pre-Parser. The name is C. >> What's the >> sense of all his ? > > Perhaps he wants to learn assembly language programmer faster and > easier than using the alternatives. The fact is that he will never learn anything about Assembly, by using a front-end designed to obfuscate Assembly. What he will eventually _guess_ in one year, he could, of course learn it in one week, with an Assembler. Period. Recall of one of your victims (was Paul), who answered, one year later, what he had learn during that time, and what he answered to the question ("mov", "add", "call", and basta...). Pathetic. Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Adrian on 19 Oct 2006 14:05
randyhyde(a)earthlink.net wrote: > > Betov wrote: >> >> You are right with pointing to this, clown: >> >> Your future victims should, indeed, take a serious >> look at the messages posted at those places, and >> to compare with the ones seen at various Assembly >> Boards. This is indeed much intructive. > > How would you know? > Cheers, > Randy Hyde Hi Group, Well that truly "set the cat among the pigeons" !!, yes, there was intention to provoke - Rene - I sincerely apologise if you thought in any way there was a slur or racial prejudice when I suggested use of a spell checker - my own spelling is atrocious so mine is automatically invoked to catch the silly ones I keep repeating. The flames have hidden the initial aspect of the post and that was to promote the tremendous effort by Sven Klose and his TMA product - bearing in mind that he suffers from one of life's terrible afflictions. If you can further develop this Rene, if able to acquire the necessary permission, then I am confident it will be greatly appreciated by the assemblers here and would be a valuable adjunct to your own offerings. In the interim, it is still worth investigating as to it's current capabilities. KiLVaiDeN - some of your comments I do take on board - I will be playing (another way of specifying the learn process) with different assemblers on the way - allready have FASM and YASM loaded up and tested, Gas is allready part of this Linux box (not too happy with it's syntax and docs at all) - only hole is not being able at present to toy with MASM. I understand that HLA hides the essence of assembler - but that was as far as I'm concerned part of the learn process - I've got the assemblers as well to consolidate what I garner from the HLA material. I hadn't ever considered the possibility of generating directly from C with "inline assembly" which I will add to my set of training tools - thanks for that advice, sort of extends my knowledge past the "printf" statement :-) . To paraphrase what you said - and I think it quite moot - to parallel in assembler (no particular one - possibly several given enough time) the same material as covered in HLA. I have enough curiosity to query what goes on under the hood - from what I have allready seen and heard, Randy is a helpful guy and I've no doubt he wont have a problem taking honest critique on board. Thanks guys for your time, I've just got to reapply the flame retardant to my asbestos knickers as it's unusually warm in this group LOL. Regards, Adrian Clarke Welcome to Earth (A MicroSoft subsidiary) |