"We Never Use Assembly Language"
in [ASM]
|
From: randyhyde@earthlink.net on 20 Mar 2006 13:49 o//annabee wrote: so > > I'll continue to play along. > > I am not playing at all. I really want to see this 6 socalled non-trivial > applications you wrote in assembly. I can find them. I found this link. Is > this the applications you are talking about ? No. Just go to the HLA downloads page. Download the HLA examples. There you've find lots of non-trivial applications written in assembly language. At the link you've listed are *some* of them, but by no means most of them or the majority of them. But you can start with HLABasic. It's certainly a non-trivial app. Then you might move on to AGE. When you get through those, and understand them completely, come back and I'll tell you about more. Cheers, Randy Hyde
From: o//annabee on 20 Mar 2006 14:51 P? Mon, 20 Mar 2006 19:49:51 +0100, skrev randyhyde(a)earthlink.net <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net>: > > o//annabee wrote: > so >> > I'll continue to play along. >> >> I am not playing at all. I really want to see this 6 socalled >> non-trivial >> applications you wrote in assembly. I can find them. I found this link. >> Is >> this the applications you are talking about ? > > No. > Just go to the HLA downloads page. Download the HLA examples. There > you've find lots of non-trivial applications written in assembly > language. At the link you've listed are *some* of them, but by no means > most of them or the majority of them. But you can start with HLABasic. > It's certainly a non-trivial app. Then you might move on to AGE. When > you get through those, and understand them completely, come back and > I'll tell you about more. Lol. When I get through them and understand them completly? Those are written in HLA ? Anyway I can find them. But if true, HLA, then they are NOT assembly applications. Trivial maybe. I m glad though that you require that people have to learn everything inside your non-trivial application in order to see more, as this will spare a lot og people from seeing such abnoxious things. Too bad, that you couldnt have such a clause on you posts. "I dont post until you have understood and agree with anything I said". That silence would have made buddha look stupid. > Cheers, > Randy Hyde >
From: randyhyde@earthlink.net on 20 Mar 2006 15:22 Betov wrote: > > If i would be interrested with this (i am not at all), i would > do something similar by using the RosAsm TITLEs concept and by > using them for defining a scope for pseudo locals. But as there > is absolutely no need of this... :-) Well, well, well... It seems that Rene is *finally* beginning to discover how useful *namespaces* might be. He doesn't *realize* that he is reinventing namespaces, of course. And he'll, undoubtedly create a new term to describe what everyone else has been calling namespaces for years. And, of course, he'll adamently insist that he's not *really* creating namespaces here, because (1) "namespaces are a HLL concept" and (2) he's argued against namespaces in the past. But the bottom lines is that he has discovered that the concept of namespaces are quite useful and he's looking for a way to work it into his assembler. Good job Rene! I don't care what you call it. Call it "true namespaces" for all I care. At least you'll be giving your users an advanced feature that few other assemblers have (HLA, of course, supports namespaces). Cheers, Randy Hyde
From: Dragontamer on 20 Mar 2006 16:29 o//annabee wrote: > På Mon, 20 Mar 2006 19:49:51 +0100, skrev randyhyde(a)earthlink.net > <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net>: > > > > > o//annabee wrote: > > so > >> > I'll continue to play along. > >> > >> I am not playing at all. I really want to see this 6 socalled > >> non-trivial > >> applications you wrote in assembly. I can find them. I found this link. > >> Is > >> this the applications you are talking about ? > > > > No. > > Just go to the HLA downloads page. Download the HLA examples. There > > you've find lots of non-trivial applications written in assembly > > language. At the link you've listed are *some* of them, but by no means > > most of them or the majority of them. But you can start with HLABasic. > > It's certainly a non-trivial app. Then you might move on to AGE. When > > you get through those, and understand them completely, come back and > > I'll tell you about more. > > Lol. When I get through them and understand them completly? > > Those are written in HLA ? Anyway I can find them. But if true, HLA, then > they are NOT assembly applications. Trivial maybe. Here we go again; arguing what an assembly language is instead of saying why RosAsm is better than HLA or whatever. Wannabie; stop worrying *what* an assembly language is, and start thinking how RosAsm is better than HLA. God Damn. If a friken name means that much to you, then fine; I'll agree. Randall isn't teaching assembly programming, but "HLA programming", if it makes a difference. And if you don't wanna call it "HLA programming" then call it whatever you want. A name is a name. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. Don't judge a book by its cover. Etc. Etc. Etc. --Dragontamer
From: rhyde on 20 Mar 2006 17:22
o//annabee wrote: > > Those are written in HLA ? Anyway I can find them. But if true, HLA, then > they are NOT assembly applications. Trivial maybe. You've proved the point I've been making all along. You're not at all interested in looking at the code, just in making some warped political statement. > > I m glad though that you require that people have to learn everything > inside your non-trivial application in order to see more, You asked for non-trivial apps. I gave them to you. Because they are non-trivial, they're going to take some time for someone at *your* skill level to digest. No sense overloading your feeble mind at this point :-) So when you ask some *real* questions about those apps, that indicate you've actually *read* the code (which is what you've been asking for), we can move forward. Cheers, Randy Hyde |