"We Never Use Assembly Language"
in [ASM]
|
From: sevagK on 12 Mar 2006 19:30 o//annabee wrote: > > > > To you maybe. I spent 10 minutes on it trying to do a trivial thing > > and already broke the If-end_if macro. It's the most retarded > > conditional branch macro I've experienced in any assmebler. > > But you fail to see the real reason. This is an ASSEMBLER. It is very very > GOOD that the macros fail you this way, because they make you aware of > this fact. Once you have understood the reasons, and the purpose of them, > you will be able to write assembly code todo what you want. > [snip long winded excuse on something unrelated] I can already write assembly code to do what I want, Wannabee. It's too bad that I expect the same from macros that I use. Your explanation is not the reason why those macros fail, the reason is Rosasm's weak macro system. I can't make it break on everything, but it broke on something as trivial as this: if D$NumberOfDots = 1000 call 'USER32.SendMessageA' D$StatusBarHandle, &SB_SETTEXT, 4, {' 100', 0} Else_If D$NumberOfDots = 20000 ; call 'USER32.SendMessageA' D$StatusBarHandle, &SB_SETTEXT, 4, ; {' 200', 0} Else_If D$NumberOfDots = 40000 call 'USER32.SendMessageA' D$StatusBarHandle, &SB_SETTEXT, 4, {' 4000', 0} Else_If D$NumberOfDots = 80000 call 'USER32.SendMessageA' D$StatusBarHandle, &SB_SETTEXT, 4, {' 8000', 0} Else_If D$NumberOfDots = 160000 call 'USER32.SendMessageA' D$StatusBarHandle, &SB_SETTEXT, 4, {' 16000', 0} End_If For some reason, Rosasm doesn't like the comment lines. It has nothing to do about how numbers are treated in assembly. > > > Then I tried to undo some texts... 1 character at a time undo. He > > doesn't even have the competence to implement a decent undo feature. > > Just about all Rosasm 'features' are a pale shadow of the same > > features that appear in better assemblers. > > As far as I know, I can even undo Breakpoints with CTRL+Z. Do you imagine > that RosAsm never has any bugs? Why dont you help by reporting this bug, > instead of posting a silly complaint about the quality of the whole 3 > megabytes of code, examplified by a small bug in a feature that works in > most cases, for the other RosAsm programmers. I had some trouble with > CTRL-Z a long time ago, but cannot remember any recent troubles. But if > really true, it would be helpful to report this bug. I don't think it's a bug. It works, just 1 character at a time. That's an implementation issue. Besides, Rene has a track record of ignoring bugs reported by non-Rosasm users so I don't even bother. > For instance, I do not deem HLA completly useless, for doing _HLA_. If > doing HLA is what you want, then HLA is your only option. But if you want > to learn assembly programming, then you need an assembler. Like FASM, or > RosAsm or any of the other. I had no trouble learning assembly with HLA. Neither have several others that I know of and many more that I don't know directly. You are the only one I know of who has claimed to learn assembler using Rosasm. So HLA at least is several magnitudes above Rosasm for learning assembly. > For windows programming, you be unlucky to > choose anything but RosAsm, even if it is in active development, and even Ridiculous. Windows programming is easy with HLA, FASM, MASM, GoAsm... and yes, even Rosasm. Out of all of these, HLA is easiest to program because of its advanced features and Rosasm the most difficult due to its lack. > if it do have some bugs. But it is now very stable the way I use it, and I > have mostly only extremly positive things to say about it. > > >> If Randall Hyde has any competanse, then who wrote HLA? If it was not > >> Randall I like to know who is responsible for this catastrophy. > >> > > > > Rosasm can't hold a candle to the power of HLA. But that's not > > surprising... Rosasm can't hold a candle to the power of MASM, FASM, > > GOASM, NASM, TASM or AS. > > Theres no tool written, even able to be compared with the high > productivity of the RosAsm assembler. I can name 3 just off the top of my head that offer better productivity than Rosasm: HLA, MASM, FASM. > HLA is not an assembler as you know. > It uses FASM in the lowend. FASM is the assembler in the "HLA System" :))) > HLA is a rather weak HLL, that also is dog slow. [snip] Ahh, the tired old argument which I won't get into again. Aside from your opinon on the "HLA system," it can be numberd among the most advanced assembly tools on the market, while the Rosasm assemble is among the weakest. I don't buy any nonsense about what belongs to "assembly" and what doesn't based on Rene's incompetence (if he can't do it, it's not assembly). Feature for feature, Rosasm is dragging on the bottom of the heap. -sevag.k www.geocities.com/kahlinor
From: Dragontamer on 12 Mar 2006 20:51 o//annabee wrote: > På Mon, 13 Mar 2006 01:30:13 +0100, skrev sevagK <kahlinor(a)yahoo.com>: > > > I can't make it break on everything, but it broke on something as > > trivial as this: > > > > if D$NumberOfDots = 1000 > > call 'USER32.SendMessageA' D$StatusBarHandle, &SB_SETTEXT, 4, > > {' 100', 0} > > > > Else_If D$NumberOfDots = 20000 > > > > ; call 'USER32.SendMessageA' D$StatusBarHandle, &SB_SETTEXT, 4, > > ; {' 200', 0} > > > > Else_If D$NumberOfDots = 40000 > > call 'USER32.SendMessageA' D$StatusBarHandle, &SB_SETTEXT, 4, > > {' 4000', 0} > > Else_If D$NumberOfDots = 80000 > > call 'USER32.SendMessageA' D$StatusBarHandle, &SB_SETTEXT, 4, > > {' 8000', 0} > > Else_If D$NumberOfDots = 160000 > > call 'USER32.SendMessageA' D$StatusBarHandle, &SB_SETTEXT, 4, > > {' 16000', 0} > > End_If > > This is because in assembly, a short jump cannot surpass 128 bytes in > forward and 127 bytes in backward direction. You need a long jump. You > need this (The long form of the IF statement). > > .if D§NumberOfDots = 1000 > call 'USER32.SendMessageA' D§StatusBarHandle, &SB_SETTEXT, 4, > {' 100', 0} > > .Else_If D§NumberOfDots = 20000 > > call 'USER32.SendMessageA' D§StatusBarHandle, &SB_SETTEXT, 4, > {' 200', 0} > > .Else_If D§NumberOfDots = 40000 > call 'USER32.SendMessageA' D§StatusBarHandle, &SB_SETTEXT, 4, > {' 4000', 0} > .Else_If D§NumberOfDots = 80000 > call 'USER32.SendMessageA' D§StatusBarHandle, &SB_SETTEXT, 4, > {' 8000', 0} > .Else_If D§NumberOfDots = 160000 > call 'USER32.SendMessageA' D§StatusBarHandle, &SB_SETTEXT, 4, > {' 16000', 0} > .End_If Wow. And I was complaining about C's = vs == a few weeks earlier. > Yeas. :)))) And what do you have of evidence to this? I dunno bout you wannabie; but I wouldn't be asking for evidence in your position either :) > >> HLA is not an assembler as you know. > >> It uses FASM in the lowend. FASM is the assembler in the "HLA System" > >> :))) > >> HLA is a rather weak HLL, that also is dog slow. > > [snip] > > > > Ahh, the tired old argument which I won't get into again. > > :))) I had the feeling you would want to escape theese facts. This are > Randall Hydes OWN words you know..... If it was Randall's words, he would have said them. What you did was stuff his mouth with words that you said. Quite a difference. Frankly; I don't remember when Randall said that HLA is a weak HLL. > > it can be numberd among the most > > advanced assembly tools on the market, while the Rosasm assemble is > > among the weakest. > > Talk is cheap. Cough up the demos. I wonder why you take up demos as evidence, but when I argue for HLLs, you don't take any demos (ex: linux, just about all the games you've played, etc. etc.) as evidence that HLLs are more productive? [snip] > Security. Yeah yeah yeah, I can see at least an argument for the others; but security? Lol :-) [snip] I dunno why you confuse IDE features with language features... --Dragontamer
From: o//annabee on 12 Mar 2006 21:36 P? Mon, 13 Mar 2006 02:29:50 +0100, skrev Dragontamer <prtiglao(a)gmail.com>: > > o//annabee wrote: >> P? Sun, 12 Mar 2006 23:24:53 +0100, skrev sevagK <kahlinor(a)yahoo.com>: > > It is good when something doesn't work the way it is expected to work? Of course not. Why do you think it was not expected to work this way? > For 32-bit numbers; there is only one practical value of -1, and that > is FFFF FFFF. Agreed. > You can argue that 0000 000F is -1 all you want; but it isn't as > practical as the standard > 2s Complement version binary. I dont recall what two compliment even is. I have never needed this term to write my stuff. > As for Java: use an Array incorrectly because of an Off-by-one error, > and you'd get > an exception. So? Use an array incorrectly in RosAsm, you also get an exception. :) Whats so nice about an exceptions ? :)) > Do the same in assembly, and you got a bug that can lead up to a > catostrophic crash > that could be *very* hard to find. True. Except they are ususally much easier to find with RosAsm, then it was in Delphi! While you fix those, you learn to avoid those. When the compiler handles it for you, you never learn. I would really try to have you understand my point of view. But I am afraid it will not help. The cost of having your tool make up for your mistakes, in advance is high. It will create programmers alianated from real understanding of what they are doing. How are you going to advance the art of programming or the art of OS making, if no programmer gets their hands dirty with the real thing? You may sometimes wonder, why this issue is so important to me. And that is part of the reason. Alianation. I have seen how much I really didnt know, because I didnt use assembly. I now want to learn that, I want to master it. And I found it to be harder to make such mistakes now. I _do_ make them, and I even once made some bugs that will disable my OS. Its horryfying, of course, I understand you position. But fact is that to me the cost of letting the tool do all the work for me is too high. The resulting software is too slow. It has limitations that I am unable to change. To me the price of using a HLL is much too high. And I am quite sure that there are other mistakes to make in Java that will be just a sucky to live with. Dont tell me serious Java programming is just completly uncomplicated, because I have a hard time beliving you. Even I do not know java. But please, show me some Java app you created, so I can have a look. >> > Then I tried to undo some texts... 1 character at a time undo. He >> > doesn't even have the competence to implement a decent undo feature. >> > Just about all Rosasm 'features' are a pale shadow of the same >> > features that appear in better assemblers. >> >> As far as I know, I can even undo Breakpoints with CTRL+Z. Do you >> imagine >> that RosAsm never has any bugs? Why dont you help by reporting this bug, >> instead of posting a silly complaint about the quality of the whole 3 >> megabytes of code, examplified by a small bug in a feature that works in >> most cases, for the other RosAsm programmers. I had some trouble with >> CTRL-Z a long time ago, but cannot remember any recent troubles. But if >> really true, it would be helpful to report this bug. > > I find it funny that you brag about 3 megs of code; when obviously much > larger > feats have been accomplished. I was pointing out to him that a possible bug in a undo feature is not enough info to deem a whole (in my view) *wonderful* programming tool a failure. You see, that the real reason for this fight. You, Sevagk and Randall Hyde, are people who look for errors and then judge based on the few errors. I try more and more to learn from Betov to look for the positive stuff, and not to judge the whole things in error because of some small faults in a system. But actually, I am really, originally more like SevagK. I too are used to lay weight on the negative stuff. The errors, the non-perfections. But I more and more thinking that this is a desease, and I am learning from RosAsm a new way of looking at things. To see, and acknowledge the good stuff. And RosAsm has TONS of good stuff. > > Actually; it is funny that anyone would brag about source-code size at > all. Maybe. But it is also a bit funny to deem a tool in failure on a simple bug in a small part of a system. > > Measuring programming progress by lines of code is like > measuring aircraft building progress by weight > ----- Bill Gates I agree. To some extent. I really do agree. But it takes a long time to list all the features of RosAsm each time. Its just easier to say the size of it. Anyway. Its written in assembly, and 3 megs of asm code, says a hell of alot more than 3 megs of HLL code. But basically, yes, I do agree. > As for a true feat, Unix 6th Edition was done in less than 10,000 lines > of code. Ok. Sounds impressive. Does that include the command lines utilities? > Probably on a teletype, and not a monitor, as well. :) ok. I dont know anything about UNIX I am afraid. >> >> If Randall Hyde has any competanse, then who wrote HLA? If it was not >> >> Randall I like to know who is responsible for this catastrophy. >> >> >> > >> > Rosasm can't hold a candle to the power of HLA. But that's not >> > surprising... Rosasm can't hold a candle to the power of MASM, FASM, >> > GOASM, NASM, TASM or AS. >> >> Theres no tool written, even able to be compared with the high >> productivity of the RosAsm assembler. HLA is not an assembler as you >> know. >> It uses FASM in the lowend. FASM is the assembler in the "HLA System" >> :))) >> HLA is a rather weak HLL, that also is dog slow. > > TCL / TK beats RosAsm easily in terms of readability, simplicity, > portability, and > GUI programming in general. There are plenty of more productive tools > than just > assembly. Maybe. I never tried it. But we cant compare appleas and oranges. I am talking about when you develop a GUI, from ground up. When you design a dynamic memory manager to drive it, when you build all the supportroutines from ground up. Can you do that in TCL? Have anybody tried it? Otherwise, how can we have a comparison? > As for HLA's speed; frankly, I don't care how slow C++ compilers are, > easily a > few magnitudes slower than HLA. I doubt anyone really cares about HLA's > compile speed. I also doubt that anybody care. Least of all it author. But when using RosAsm, one of its significant feature are the compiler speed. It makes possible to test every simple change you make. Because it take lesser the time it takes to have a zip of coffie, to see the app run. > >> > It's no surprise that the assembler dragging at the bottom of the heap >> > was written by an incompetent. >> >> :)) Incompetent enough to write a disassebler able to reproduce, >> flawlessly my MonsterMedia and Help.exe and CurrentProject >> applicatioms. 3 >> apps that are > 300 kb bytes when sourcecode is removed. > > And fails to disassemble Lemming-Ball Z startup runner, a 10930 byte > file (11k) Do you understand why? > If you or Betov is interested in this; just email me, and I'll email > you this file. And your > "comment out the part that fails" method doesn't work btw. I am not interessted. Rene is programming RosAsm. I am a beginner asm programmer, with a plan on my own. Later, when I feel up to it, I may want to help out with RosAsm. For instance maybe give it a facelift. But theres much work for me todo first. And much more to learn. > > --Dragontamer > -- Poor bonsai plants, being tortured by evil gardner
From: o//annabee on 12 Mar 2006 21:58 P? Mon, 13 Mar 2006 02:51:35 +0100, skrev Dragontamer <prtiglao(a)gmail.com>: > > o//annabee wrote: >> P? Mon, 13 Mar 2006 01:30:13 +0100, skrev sevagK <kahlinor(a)yahoo.com>: >> >> > I can't make it break on everything, but it broke on something as >> > trivial as this: >> > >> > if D$NumberOfDots = 1000 >> > call 'USER32.SendMessageA' D$StatusBarHandle, &SB_SETTEXT, 4, >> > {' 100', 0} >> > >> > Else_If D$NumberOfDots = 20000 >> > >> > ; call 'USER32.SendMessageA' D$StatusBarHandle, &SB_SETTEXT, 4, >> > ; {' 200', 0} >> > >> > Else_If D$NumberOfDots = 40000 >> > call 'USER32.SendMessageA' D$StatusBarHandle, &SB_SETTEXT, 4, >> > {' 4000', 0} >> > Else_If D$NumberOfDots = 80000 >> > call 'USER32.SendMessageA' D$StatusBarHandle, &SB_SETTEXT, 4, >> > {' 8000', 0} >> > Else_If D$NumberOfDots = 160000 >> > call 'USER32.SendMessageA' D$StatusBarHandle, &SB_SETTEXT, 4, >> > {' 16000', 0} >> > End_If >> >> This is because in assembly, a short jump cannot surpass 128 bytes in >> forward and 127 bytes in backward direction. You need a long jump. You >> need this (The long form of the IF statement). >> >> .if D?NumberOfDots = 1000 >> call 'USER32.SendMessageA' D?StatusBarHandle, &SB_SETTEXT, 4, >> {' 100', 0} >> >> .Else_If D?NumberOfDots = 20000 >> >> call 'USER32.SendMessageA' D?StatusBarHandle, &SB_SETTEXT, 4, >> {' 200', 0} >> >> .Else_If D?NumberOfDots = 40000 >> call 'USER32.SendMessageA' D?StatusBarHandle, &SB_SETTEXT, 4, >> {' 4000', 0} >> .Else_If D?NumberOfDots = 80000 >> call 'USER32.SendMessageA' D?StatusBarHandle, &SB_SETTEXT, 4, >> {' 8000', 0} >> .Else_If D?NumberOfDots = 160000 >> call 'USER32.SendMessageA' D?StatusBarHandle, &SB_SETTEXT, 4, >> {' 16000', 0} >> .End_If > > Wow. > > And I was complaining about C's = vs == a few weeks earlier. > >> Yeas. :)))) And what do you have of evidence to this? > > I dunno bout you wannabie; but I wouldn't be asking for evidence in > your position either :) Why not? > > >> >> HLA is not an assembler as you know. >> >> It uses FASM in the lowend. FASM is the assembler in the "HLA System" >> >> :))) >> >> HLA is a rather weak HLL, that also is dog slow. >> > [snip] >> > >> > Ahh, the tired old argument which I won't get into again. >> >> :))) I had the feeling you would want to escape theese facts. This are >> Randall Hydes OWN words you know..... > > If it was Randall's words, he would have said them. Did so, 12 february 2005, if I recall right. > What you did was stuff his mouth with words that you said. Quite a > difference. Not the way I see it. He called it the "HLA System". This means : Text converter + FASM = HLA > > Frankly; I don't remember when Randall said that HLA is a weak HLL. No, but we have Herbert, Betov and others saying so. >> > it can be numberd among the most >> > advanced assembly tools on the market, while the Rosasm assemble is >> > among the weakest. >> >> Talk is cheap. Cough up the demos. > > I wonder why you take up demos as evidence, but when I argue for HLLs, > you > don't take any demos (ex: linux, just about all the games you've > played, etc. etc.) > as evidence that HLLs are more productive? Have you ever seen the credits listing for you average game theese days? > > [snip] >> Security. > > Yeah yeah yeah, I can see at least an argument for the others; but > security? > > Lol :-) This means that if RosAsm crach, it takes time to save your source. One of several securities. > [snip] > > I dunno why you confuse IDE features with language features... In RosAsm they are closely related. And of course, its the IDE along with the languages that makes the RosAsm assembler so productive. RosAsm is an holistic approach to assemnly programming. > > --Dragontamer > -- :) Not much to answer to here Dragon.
From: Dragontamer on 12 Mar 2006 22:14
o//annabee wrote: > På Mon, 13 Mar 2006 02:29:50 +0100, skrev Dragontamer <prtiglao(a)gmail.com>: > > > > > o//annabee wrote: > >> På Sun, 12 Mar 2006 23:24:53 +0100, skrev sevagK <kahlinor(a)yahoo.com>: > > > > It is good when something doesn't work the way it is expected to work? > > Of course not. Why do you think it was not expected to work this way? > > > For 32-bit numbers; there is only one practical value of -1, and that > > is FFFF FFFF. > > Agreed. > > > You can argue that 0000 000F is -1 all you want; but it isn't as > > practical as the standard > > 2s Complement version binary. > > I dont recall what two compliment even is. I have never needed this term > to write my stuff. 2s Complement is when FFFF FFFF == -1 :-p > > As for Java: use an Array incorrectly because of an Off-by-one error, > > and you'd get > > an exception. > > So? Use an array incorrectly in RosAsm, you also get an exception. :) > Whats so nice about an exceptions ? :)) I mean; off-by-one error. Java would give you an exception telling you which line of code it is on; and one that can be caught during the runtime of the program. As RosAsm doesn't support standardized try/catch statements (probably can be done through a macro, but standardized across the language is where it counts) you don't know what will happen. > > Do the same in assembly, and you got a bug that can lead up to a > > catostrophic crash > > that could be *very* hard to find. > > True. Except they are ususally much easier to find with RosAsm, then it > was in Delphi! And much much easier in Java; as it gives ya the line of code right there. > While you fix those, you learn to avoid those. When the compiler handles > it for you, you never learn. I would really try to have you understand my > point of view. But I am afraid it will not help. The cost of having your > tool make up for your mistakes, in advance is high. It will create > programmers alianated from real understanding of what they are doing. How > are you going to advance the art of programming or the art of OS making, > if no programmer gets their hands dirty with the real thing? And if the compiler handles it for you; you won't need to learn, and can focus on other more important things. Why learn something if you'd only need to know it for assembly language, assuming you'd never use assembly language? Such as the game idea, instead of the game programming :-p > You may sometimes wonder, why this issue is so important to me. And that > is part of the reason. Alianation. I have seen how much I really didnt > know, because I didnt use assembly. There is always something to learn; regardless of the language you use. You can see this if you use any extremely high lvl languages like Haskell or Scheme. > I now want to learn that, I want to > master it. And I found it to be harder to make such mistakes now. I _do_ > make them, and I even once made some bugs that will disable my OS. Frankly; that is microsoft's fault :) Not yours. But microsoft makes it your problem :-/ > Its > horryfying, of course, I understand you position. But fact is that to me > the cost of letting the tool do all the work for me is too high. The > resulting software is too slow. As Rene has said: what speed benifits can be expected from SEE instructions? Similarly: I say, what speed benifits can be expected from Assembly? 20%? 30%? Even if it is as high as 30% savings, that difference is usually much too small to notice, unless in the innermost loop of your program; which is obviously where assembly should be used. > It has limitations that I am unable to > change. To me the price of using a HLL is much too high. And I am quite > sure that there are other mistakes to make in Java that will be just a > sucky to live with. Dont tell me serious Java programming is just > completly uncomplicated, because I have a hard time beliving you. Even I > do not know java. > > But please, show me some Java app you created, so I can have a look. My Java experiance was in Robocode when I was truely a beginner in programming... unfortunatly, my *good* robots have been lost to a hardware problem, along with the source code. And the online competiton that did have my crappy bot is now gone :-/ Mind you; I hate these "show me your app" things :) I really don't see the point in them, aside from bragging rights. > >> > Then I tried to undo some texts... 1 character at a time undo. He > >> > doesn't even have the competence to implement a decent undo feature. > >> > Just about all Rosasm 'features' are a pale shadow of the same > >> > features that appear in better assemblers. > >> > >> As far as I know, I can even undo Breakpoints with CTRL+Z. Do you > >> imagine > >> that RosAsm never has any bugs? Why dont you help by reporting this bug, > >> instead of posting a silly complaint about the quality of the whole 3 > >> megabytes of code, examplified by a small bug in a feature that works in > >> most cases, for the other RosAsm programmers. I had some trouble with > >> CTRL-Z a long time ago, but cannot remember any recent troubles. But if > >> really true, it would be helpful to report this bug. > > > > I find it funny that you brag about 3 megs of code; when obviously much > > larger > > feats have been accomplished. > > I was pointing out to him that a possible bug in a undo feature is not > enough info to deem a whole (in my view) *wonderful* programming tool a > failure. You see, that the real reason for this fight. You, Sevagk and > Randall Hyde, are people who look for errors and then judge based on the > few errors. I try more and more to learn from Betov to look for the > positive stuff, and not to judge the whole things in error because of some > small faults in a system. But actually, I am really, originally more like > SevagK. I too are used to lay weight on the negative stuff. The errors, > the non-perfections. But I more and more thinking that this is a desease, > and I am learning from RosAsm a new way of looking at things. To see, and > acknowledge the good stuff. And RosAsm has TONS of good stuff. There is never a reason for a fight; simply a reason for a discussion. And you never seem to acknowledge the good stuff of HLA :-p Now; here is a good reason why I don't bring up the good stuff of RosAsm: We are talking about RosAsm's flaws, not its good stuff. So why should any of its positives be brought up? > > Actually; it is funny that anyone would brag about source-code size at > > all. > > Maybe. But it is also a bit funny to deem a tool in failure on a simple > bug in a small part of a system. > > > > > Measuring programming progress by lines of code is like > > measuring aircraft building progress by weight > > ----- Bill Gates > > I agree. To some extent. I really do agree. But it takes a long time to > list all the features of RosAsm each time. Its just easier to say the size > of it. Anyway. Its written in assembly, and 3 megs of asm code, says a > hell of alot more than 3 megs of HLL code. > > But basically, yes, I do agree. > > > As for a true feat, Unix 6th Edition was done in less than 10,000 lines > > of code. > > Ok. Sounds impressive. Does that include the command lines utilities? I dunno :-/ But I am reading it right now in "Lions' Commentary on Unix 6th edition" with source code included. Maybe in a few chapters I'll find out :-p One section at a time... But taking a quick glance over it; I see pipe code, a printer driver, tty... ah, tty is IIRC, the commandline. But I don't see the utilities, such as grep and stuff. (this code is probably older than grep :-p) > > Probably on a teletype, and not a monitor, as well. > > :) ok. I dont know anything about UNIX I am afraid. Back in the old days, (according to the history books), the printer was invented before the monitor. So the way they wrote programs was by typing stuff into the comuputer, which would print out the results on the printer. There was no monitor. This system was called the teletype. I think the "ed" editor was used back then. Basically, you'd open a file, and then basically say "row 40, column 20, change letter to 'r'", in what I'd assume was a VI like language. (VI is afterall, based on ed) Probably something like 40gg20lrr, for those who have never used VI,and I remember ed has a command to print out the current line you are working on; so you'd probably do that after you were done with the line to make sure you changed the right letter. > >> >> If Randall Hyde has any competanse, then who wrote HLA? If it was not > >> >> Randall I like to know who is responsible for this catastrophy. > >> >> > >> > > >> > Rosasm can't hold a candle to the power of HLA. But that's not > >> > surprising... Rosasm can't hold a candle to the power of MASM, FASM, > >> > GOASM, NASM, TASM or AS. > >> > >> Theres no tool written, even able to be compared with the high > >> productivity of the RosAsm assembler. HLA is not an assembler as you > >> know. > >> It uses FASM in the lowend. FASM is the assembler in the "HLA System" > >> :))) > >> HLA is a rather weak HLL, that also is dog slow. > > > > TCL / TK beats RosAsm easily in terms of readability, simplicity, > > portability, and > > GUI programming in general. There are plenty of more productive tools > > than just > > assembly. > > Maybe. I never tried it. But we cant compare appleas and oranges. I am > talking about when you develop a GUI, from ground up. When you design a > dynamic memory manager to drive it, when you build all the supportroutines > from ground up. Can you do that in TCL? Have anybody tried it? Otherwise, > how can we have a comparison? Well, when talking about dynamic memory managers; all I'd do is open up a textbook and see if the problem has been solved already (which it has in Knuth book 1). 99% of the time; someone already has solved the problem and spent 5 years trying to make it better :-/ With that said; someone already probably built it. And from there; I'd only have to copy/paste the code. Or use his library and modify it to my needs. So I can modify TCL (Open Source rules) and change the dynamic memory manager if I think I could do better, and then submit the patch. And now why should I build a dynamic memory manager? Thats my view on the subject anyway. Of course; it is good to know what one is, how it works, and how to make one... but not if I wish to be as productive as possible. > > As for HLA's speed; frankly, I don't care how slow C++ compilers are, > > easily a > > few magnitudes slower than HLA. I doubt anyone really cares about HLA's > > compile speed. > > I also doubt that anybody care. Least of all it author. But when using > RosAsm, one of its significant feature are the compiler speed. It makes > possible to test every simple change you make. Because it take lesser the > time it takes to have a zip of coffie, to see the app run. I know exactly what you mean. Doing some homework problems in Lisp and TCL/TK where compile-time == 0 is proof enough :) (Interpreters are truely a great thing. Maybe someone should make an assembly interpreter, just for taking down dev-times; or maybe to add advanced features that cannot be added (easily) under static code... but if thats the case, might as well make a new language) But anything that takes more than 15 seconds really doesn't matter. If it takes more than 15 seconds to do something, it might as well take a whole minute. > >> > It's no surprise that the assembler dragging at the bottom of the heap > >> > was written by an incompetent. > >> > >> :)) Incompetent enough to write a disassebler able to reproduce, > >> flawlessly my MonsterMedia and Help.exe and CurrentProject > >> applicatioms. 3 > >> apps that are > 300 kb bytes when sourcecode is removed. > > > > And fails to disassemble Lemming-Ball Z startup runner, a 10930 byte > > file (11k) > > Do you understand why? I understand where, but I dunno why. I'm in linux-mode right now, so I can't check right now. It "disassembles" fine; but the reassembly breaks. And it isn't a problem with the "assembler" half either, cause there is a missing label in the code somewhere. So somehow, the disassembler is producing bad code; specifically; a label that somehow should be there, but it isn't there. According to Ollydbg, the exe isn't encrypted, and it seems very straight forward. Basically a few "system" commands. --Dragontamer |