"We Never Use Assembly Language"
in [ASM]
|
From: o//annabee on 16 Mar 2006 07:06 P? Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:27:39 +0100, skrev Betov <betov(a)free.fr>: > Frank Kotler <fbkotler(a)comcast.net> ?crivait news:I4SdnXNWMYmnMYXZRVn- > hg(a)comcast.com: > >> Why two "\\"s in "\\o//annabee" - oh, there aren't, anymore. > > This was a Rock&Roll spider, but, when i joked Half about > cutting one arm of his cat to save her from the hen virus, > he chosed to send his spider to the surgeon, instead. Its the readers that cannot deal with it. If I add a few, then maybe it will work. > > > Betov. > > < http://rosasm.org > >
From: randyhyde@earthlink.net on 16 Mar 2006 10:48 o//annabee wrote: > > No. I was refering to the old Proc/EndP Those wore HARD to understand when > I started with RosAsm programming. Because I did not understand how the > stack worked. Don't feel bad. Rene also seems to have trouble understanding how stacks work. After all, this is exactly the data structure one needs to implement things like nested IFs. Rene's whole complaint about why .....if is better than if is completely based on the fact that he uses *counters* rather than a stack to maintain the context. Assemblers like NASM, HLA, and MASM actually use stacks to maintain nested statement context. That's why they don't have the problem of confusing which if belongs with each elseif, as Rene claims his code does. Of course, there is also the issue that RosAsm doesn't support local symbols in macros, so woe is the person who tries to use a local symbol beginning with "I" in any of the statements within an if..endif block in RosAsm :-) Other assemblers (that provide local symbols in macros) don't have this problem. Cheers, Randy Hyde
From: randyhyde@earthlink.net on 16 Mar 2006 10:57 o//annabee wrote: > > > > But as I said, if I can make the language signficantly better, I don't > > have a problem breaking existing code. > > That means USERs code. Breaking Users code. And they have been forewarned. What's the issue? If this occurred all the time, I would probably affect HLA's popularity somewhat. But the last time I seriously broke any existing code was well over a year ago. And the change needed to fix the problem was relatively trivial (e.g., just a search and replace to convert items like "noframe" to "@noframe") and this had occurred about a year after I had already implemented the new features and warned people that the old way was deprecated. So they had *lots* of time to rewrite any existing code. When the old stuff went away, I heard only one or two complaints about how end user code was broken. And for those who didn't even *want* to do the search and replace code, I gave them a couple of macros that did stuff like this: #macro noframe; @noframe #endmacro So by adding *one* line to their program, they could continue to compile all their old broken code. > > > After all, that is the purpose > > of a prototype -- to get the rough edges out before commiting to a > > version in which legacy support is important. > > Seem irresponsable to me. I'm sure than anything having to do with HLA is irresponsible to you. :-) Fortunately, I don't get too many complaints from HLA users. They rather *like* the fact that dramatic improvements are being made to the language. Even if it means they need to make minor changes to their code now and then in order to enjoy those changes. > > > And you better believe that when HLA v2.0 comes out, a lot of code will > > break. > > :))) I have a real hard time beliving that.......... :))) As I said, anything having to do with HLA... > > > Will this matter? Hardly at all. > > Because you only have one users. And this is yourself. I see you've got your head buried in the same whole in the sand that Rene does. Ignoring reality just because you don't like it is a sign of insanity, you know? > > > People who feel it's too much work to > > translate their existing source code can continue to compile under HLA > > v1.x. > > That is only you. So no problem. So why are you complaining if you actually believe this? Cheers, Randy Hyde
From: o//annabee on 16 Mar 2006 11:09 P? Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:48:39 +0100, skrev randyhyde(a)earthlink.net <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net>: > > o//annabee wrote: >> >> No. I was refering to the old Proc/EndP Those wore HARD to understand >> when >> I started with RosAsm programming. Because I did not understand how the >> stack worked. > > Don't feel bad. I feel great! Why dont you hurry up and post the 6 links to the 6 non-trivial asmmbly application you have written. You seem to have time enough for posting links to your books. Why not show us how a truely amazing asm experts write assembly? Since your a "master" of assembly, having written the books "Arts and Assembly" and "Greatnesses of code" it should be of interest that people could actually find any of the non-trivial apps you have created. To see how it should really be done. I looked at you page, and came up clean. Cant you just post the links? Thanks in advance. > Cheers, > Randy Hyde >
From: Betov on 16 Mar 2006 11:19
o//annabee <fack(a)szmyggenpv.com> ?crivait news:op.s6ikimxace7g4q(a)bonus: > Why dont you hurry up and post the 6 links to the 6 non-trivial > asmmbly application you have written. You seem to have time enough > for posting links to your books. Why not show us how a truely amazing > asm experts write assembly? Since your a "master" of assembly, having > written the books "Arts and Assembly" and "Greatnesses of code" it > should be of interest that people could actually find any of the > non-trivial apps you have created. The one i prefer, for now, is the last one: "Write high level, think low level" ... from the individual who, for the insignificant packets of shits he wrote [see his so called "Standard Library", if you want a good laugh time...], was pretty good at trying to simulate Assembly (what he calls so...), while thinking patheticaly HLL. :]]]]] Betov. < http://rosasm.org > |