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 20:04 KiLVaiDeN wrote: > > > > 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, Sad for your. > 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. Yes, you must defend the world against "Nazi Americans", the Monsantos of the world, and so on. There is nothing normal about Rene's behavior, I'm afraid. The guy is clearly psychotic and you would do well not to try and pattern your own behavior after him. > 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. It explains nothing. Those edits you commented on (which, btw, consisted of pointed out that the Wiki page's claims about an "integrated linker" don't really match what people think of as a linker) took place this year. If Rene started misbehaving this year, you might have a point. But it's been six years around here, so your point is *not* taken. > > 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. If "I am HLA" then I'm definitely the one to argue with. You like to make lots of statements and then you don't back them up. As I said, a Rene-in-training. > > 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 ? You obviously don't know HLA, so you really don't know what you're talking about, do you? The synatical stuff that HLA borrows from HLLs is mainly in the area of variable declarations, macros, and stuff like that. The actual assembly language (that is, the machine instructions) don't really exist in HLLs, and it's certainly the case that the semantics associated with learning assembly language (that is, the machine instructions) is completely missing from HLL syntax. Yes, someone *could* learn assembly language using an in-line assembler in a compiler for a HLL, but no pedagogy exists that I'm aware of for this purpose and the in-line assemblers found in most HLL compilers is so weak and not very robust, so it's not a good way to learn assembly language programming. In any case, in-line assembly in a language like C has nothing to do with assembly language using HLA. > Tell me why is HLA > needed when in fact C is already a HLA² ? ( note the square ) C is not an assembly language. HLA is. Now if you think that people can learn assembly language using an in-line assembler in a particular compiler implementation, feel free to explain how this would be done. Given the complete lack of educational materials, I'd be interested in seeing how you expect people to learn assembly this way. > > 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. No relation at all. Your analogy is a complete failure. > You don't learn how to code with a visual editor, you just copy > and paste elements on the screen, Maybe *you* do. That's not how most students learn C. Or assembly. > and have no clue of what's done under > the hood. That seems to describe you, all right. You do realize that coding in assembly language, using (say) RosAsm, has the same problems, right? After all, you *still* have to make OS API calls. What's the difference between calling kernel32.wsprintf in RosAsm and invoking the str.put macro in HLA? Logically, nothing at all. Now if you think that learning assembly language means that a student has to write their own integer to string conversion routines from scratch, then *you* are the one who doesn't seem to understand what assembly language is really about. Decimal to string conversions are *not* assembly language. Sure, you can implement such code in assembly language, but you can do the same in *any* language. Assembly language is about the machine instructions and how you put them together to solve problems. Part of assembly language is calling functions. And nowhere in any definition of "assembly language" that I've ever seen is the programmer responsible for writing all their own I/O functions. Even RosAsm, which is incapable of statically linking in library modules, calls underlying functions via dynamic linking. > HLA is somehow the same, I've seen your book and I know what > I'm talking about. No, you don't. That's pretty obvious. > > 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. Then learn to explain what you mean a little better. If you're going to go off on people and products, you should learn to explain yourself a little better. > 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. GCC outputs machine-generated assembly code. Though the GCC-produced code often contains some amazing stuff, the bottom line is that human beings should *not* learn to write assembly code the way a compiler produces code. That defeats the whole purpose of writing assembly language code by hand. After all, if you produce the same code as a compiler, then there really is no reason to write assembly language code. > > Another person who thinks he knows what "real assembly language" is, > > eh? >
From: randyhyde@earthlink.net on 19 Oct 2006 20:06 Betov wrote: > > > > 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. >From what I could see, Paul had actually learned more a year later than Wannabee had learned in the three years he was playing around with RosAsm. Of course, if you want to take a statistical sample of one, you can "prove" just about anything you want, right? Cheers, Randy Hyde
From: Betov on 20 Oct 2006 04:15 "randyhyde(a)earthlink.net" <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net> ?crivait news:1161302686.606123.138670(a)h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: > If they decide to continue using the > HLL-like statements in HLA, how is that any different than, say, people > using Rene's macros for the HLL statements in RosAsm? Two points, here: 1) On the Assembler side, providing a Macros System powerfull enough for assuming the needed HLLisms is _WAY_ more work, than providing Pre-Parsers doing the same task. [This was the reason why deffective Assemblers, like MASM propose internal hidden Macros, making them Compilers for Assembly Language, instead of real Assemblers] 2) On the Programmer side, the 1:1 correspondance is preserved, as absolutely required, for diserving the name of _Assembler_, and everything is kept under the control of the Programmer, as long as the Macros are _his_ Macros. This is all of the difference in between an HLL and Assembly: The 1:1 correspondance, and as soon it is broken, we evidently are no more dong any Assembly. I did not invent the name "Macro Assembler", mind you, clown. So, definitively, indeed, when one writes: If eax > 80 Output CRLF End_If .... with RosAsm, this is, for sure, real Assembly, whereas, the exact same statement computed by a tool designed for _hiding_ Assembly, can, much evidently, have no relationship, at all, with any known form of Assembly. Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Betov on 20 Oct 2006 04:21 "randyhyde(a)earthlink.net" <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net> ?crivait news:1161302783.697797.149980(a)e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com: >>From what I could see, Paul had actually learned more a year later than > > Wannabee had learned in the three years he was playing around with > RosAsm. > > Of course, if you want to take a statistical sample of one, you can > "prove" just about anything you want, right? Yes, clown. The ones interrested can take a look at: < http://www.szmyggenpv.com/RosAsm.htm > .... which is the page of this "Wannabee". When seeing the quantity, quatity and originality of this fellow's productivity, everything is "proved", indeed. Just provide one single link, to one of your victims, having produced one tenth of that, clown. Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: KiLVaiDeN on 20 Oct 2006 04:26
Hello Randall, First of all, thank you for your time to answer my post. Look I don't have that much time to expand interminable posts on usenet about my beliefs concerning HLA, and to quote your quotes of my quotes which were quotes of your own words. Maybe I'm wrong after all in my opinion about HLA, I am always ready to step back when i'm obviously mistaken, but it looks like you are never ready to do such introspection about yourself on your own. Everytime you talk to someone, you _MUST_ be right about _ANYTHING_. Nobody is perfect dude. I will just say, that I believe HLA is a nice piece of software, I haven't denied that at any time. It's probably even good, accompagnied with the book, to learn about the way the machine works, and eventually about assembly. I have *read* it, but really fast, I haven't really taken the time to do a detailed reading and testing, and I didn't read the source code that much either, because I hate the line breaks inserted between every single line of code, and couldn't bare them. I couldn't clean it as well to have a more readable source code because it was.. Not my favorite thing to do. I understand though your point of view : you say HLA is an assembler, because it has all the directives an assembler is supposed to provide, in order to produce machine code, and therefore someone *could* use it that way, as a pure assembler. Right. Yet I believe that *MOST* HLA users don't use HLA that way. They use it with all the functions your library can provide. And there is my point : an HLA user, who is using MOSTLY the directives of HLA, is NOT programming in assembly. He's programming in HLA. That's what I'm trying to say from the beginning, but you twist my words all the time. It's just as simple as that. You say I confused the language and the implementation of the language. Hmm who cares for the implementation ? I'm talking about the language from the beginning, saying that HLA provides directives that have NOTHING to do with Assembly. Tell me how does that make me confuse about the implementation of the language and the language? I don't care if to produce a binary you use HLA 1.0 or HLA 2.89 : it's still HLA. I have work to do now. If you doubt about my programming skills, you can always do a quick search about me, you'll find several interesting things I've contributed to. I'm a professionnal programmer, certainly not involved that much in assembly ( since I'm quite young, and the assembly language wasn't promoted that much ) and mostly involved with object oriented programming technologies. Cheers K |