TMA Assembler?
in [ASM]
|
Prev: Reversing bit order in delphi ? (unmoderated)
Next: Linux / Windows GUI application with assembly
From: Betov on 20 Oct 2006 11:45 "randyhyde(a)earthlink.net" <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net> ?crivait news:1161356644.632518.229970(a)i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > If I interpret this correctly, you think that code is more readable if > you cram a bunch of different statements together all on the same line, > right? If that's the case, I would suggest that you're in a group that > is a *very* small percentage of the population. Look at all the > programming books out there. How often do you see the authors cramming > multiple statements per line? The vast majority of people out there > don't do that. And what makes you think that K is a RosAsm user, clown? I don't think he is, or, if he is, this is not with this name, and i am not aware of it... Now, what the vast majority of people do, for example, praying a god, or voting for dictatures, writing Asm, like if the screen was two inches wide, and so on... this is as interresting as the length of year 1840. As a matter of fact, RosAsm was the first significative Assembler proposing the possiblity of having multiple Statements on a Line, among so many other things, including the ones you have copied, like the 0_1100_01010b, for numbers, that have make it a real Development Environement for Assembly written PEs, as proven by the productivity of its users. Also, you are in a quite strange position, when criticizing the Mutiple-Statements Lines, after having explained to the "amaized people", that, if you Text Converter Syntax, was to end each line with a ';', this was because it was possible to have several Statements before the CRLF. Really funny, clown. Congratulations. :) Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Betov on 20 Oct 2006 11:59 "randyhyde(a)earthlink.net" <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net> ?crivait news:1161356747.578700.236530(a)i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > Betov wrote: >> >> Yes, clown. The ones interrested can take a look at: >> >> < http://www.szmyggenpv.com/RosAsm.htm > > > Totally junk cut & paste code. Readers will measure by themselves, clown. Why don't you provide any link to anything comparable, on your victims side? Don't like Half, and his home made OOA language? Well here are other ones: < http://www.chez.com/asmgges/index.htm > Interresting case of a guy who effectively writes with several different Assemblers. At a productivity point of view, the games in the RosAsm section say all there is to say. Another one? Well: < http://nessie.emubase.de/ > Anything like this, clown? All of this, from an Assembler that has 160 registred users at its Board, after 10 years of existence, whereas yours claims having 1460... Where are the ten times more Applications of your victims, clown? Not any to show? Too bad! >> ... 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. > > Take a look at Sevag's stuff sometime. I did. It was much fun. Calling a Window with a Menu, an IDE... well, at least, you have found out one of your victims who was able to create a Window, with your absurd HLL front-end. Congratulations, clown. Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: randyhyde@earthlink.net on 20 Oct 2006 12:43 Betov wrote: > > > > 1) Processing the statements within the compiler is much faster than > > processing them via interpretive macros. > > Probably the reason why RosAsm compiles huge Files in > no time, when your thingie takes a coffea time on small > ones... HLA processes small files (no macro invocations) at about 50,000 lines per second on a 3GHz PIV. While there are certainly faster assemblers out there, HLA is hardly as slow as you like to think that it is. Now if you start invoking lots of complex macros (like stdout.put), the speed can drop down signficantly (because each macro represents a large number of statements). And that's why it's better to implement commonly-used HLL-like statements directly in the compiler rather than via macros. > > > 2) You can generate better code because the macros aren't aware of many > > other things going on during the compilation. > > Last news from Randall Hyde: HLLs produce better Code > than Assembly. Hey! Hutch--, --, --! Are you asleep? Try again. What I said is that a compiler can generate better code for HLL-like constructs than can be implemented using macros. Compare the code generated by HLA's HLL-like statements against your macro set sometime, and you'll see. > > :) > > > 3) The result is more robust. You get better error messages when the > > programmer makes a syntactical (or other) mistake. > > No doubt, clown. How is it, that your victims ask so > much questions about how and why they fail on this and > that? Probably because I actually *have* "victims" who are learning assembly language with HLA. You get almost none, so you have nothing to compare against. Cheers, Randy Hyde
From: Betov on 20 Oct 2006 13:57 "randyhyde(a)earthlink.net" <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net> ?crivait news:1161362582.218919.82790(a)i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: >> No doubt, clown. How is it, that your victims ask so >> much questions about how and why they fail on this and >> that? > > Probably because I actually *have* "victims" who are learning assembly > language with HLA. You get almost none, so you have nothing to compare > against. Oh, yes! clown, we just have a couple of fellow on Board, and even new comers, on occasions. And guess what we can "compare against"? While your victims are asking incredible questions about how to have your HLL Pre-Parser doing something, we rather have new comers who introduce themselves... by proposing a contribution to RosAsm itself. Amaizing, not? :) Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: randyhyde@earthlink.net on 20 Oct 2006 15:19
Betov wrote: > While your victims are asking incredible questions about > how to have your HLL Pre-Parser doing something, we rather > have new comers who introduce themselves... by proposing > a contribution to RosAsm itself. > > Amaizing, not? Not at all amazing. RosAsm is such a weak assembler, it's not at all surprising that people are constantly proposing new features for it. :-) |