"We Never Use Assembly Language"
in [ASM]
|
From: randyhyde@earthlink.net on 14 Mar 2006 19:24 o//annabee wrote: > > You wore seriously thinking yours wore faster, and said so, because you > made the mistake of beliving something you picked up somewhere, but the > tests, I did, and posted, using rdtsc show the RosAsm one to be faster. > > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.lang.asm/msg/4a37545ee73f5bff?hl=nn& Poor silly 'bee. You don't even know how to measure cycles properly with rdtsc. Let me ask you a couple of questions: 1) where the code fragments aligned on the same boundaries? 2) did you execute an appropriate serializing operating before rdtsc? Of course, knowing you, you ran the programs several times, noticed that you got different results each time (because of interrupts and the like) and then picked the best numbers to make your point. Nice try, but no cigar. Cheers, Randy Hyde
From: randyhyde@earthlink.net on 14 Mar 2006 19:27 santosh wrote: > > What would be some of the things about Vista that you don't > particularly like? Do they happen to affect assembly programming? What > "differences" would you like to see in a hypothetical alternative to > XP/Vista? ..net and trusted platform computing for two things. Vista is abstracting the programming paradigm farther away from the machine. As an assembly language programmer, I don't like that direction. Clearly, you'll still be able to program in assembly under Vista, but this is a clear step in the direction away from the ability to run assembly programs at all. Vista is showing is that the future is all about trusted executable code, and assembly language doesn't fit in that universe. Cheers, Randy Hyde
From: randyhyde@earthlink.net on 14 Mar 2006 19:32 o//annabee wrote: > På Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:22:22 +0100, skrev randyhyde(a)earthlink.net > <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net>: > > > MS is rather devious, you know? > > Cheers, > > Randy Hyde > > May I site you on this Master PDF ? You may *cite* me on this. I am a complete agnostic with respect to Microsoft. I am neither a cheerleader for them nor am I an anti-Microsoft Zealot. If you didn't have Microsoft to hate, there would be some other big company you would hate. You just need to hate something to make your life complete. Forgive me for not sharing your sentiment. Big companies (and especially big money) are always corrupted; see what happened to Google, for example. OTOH, I'm not going to hold those company's success against them. Just because I wish that I was rich and corrupted by the money doesn't mean I have to hate those who have made it big. But I also know, first-hand, what can happen when a big company with lots of money and lawyers comes after the little guy. The little guy loses. Period. End of story. And I suspect that will happen to ReactOS. Cheers, Randy Hyde
From: sevagK on 14 Mar 2006 19:45 o//annabee wrote: > På Tue, 14 Mar 2006 21:40:46 +0100, skrev sevagK <kahlinor(a)yahoo.com>: > > > > > Betov wrote: > >> "sevagK" <kahlinor(a)yahoo.com> écrivait news:1142301695.148972.226240 > >> @j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com: > >> > >> > Rosasm = IDE for converting written assembly to executable/dll > >> > HIDE = IDE for converting written assembly to executable/dll/library > >> > Rosasm: can call up debugger, resource editor, help file, etc. > >> > HIDE can call up debugger, resource editor, help file, etc. > >> > > >> > Both get the same job done. > >> > >> If so, where are the Links to the Applications written > >> by the HLA victims, Pathetic idiot? > >> > >> > >> Betov. > >> > > > > Clown, your reply has nothing to do with the above which compares the > > IDEs and productivity. Mine took less than a year of light dev time, > > but its abilty to truly integrate with software allows it to compare > > nearly feature to feature to your IDE which took a decade of heavy dev > > time. > > Time to program FASM ? > + time for Hla 9 years > + time for HLAParse ? > + time for the external debugger? > + your one year > = ???? > > > Not only did it take much less time, but the quality of the > > tools it can integrate with are far superior to anything you've bolted > > onto Rosasm over the years. > > :) I am to tired at laughing. > Careful, you might bust a gut. Looks like you got the point though. With true ingtegration, one can capitalize on the works others have done and cut down their own development time. Not only that, but the people who do concentrate on single aspects of the system produce better tools then someone who tries to jam in everything on his own. Case in point: Rosasm... a jumble of components in various stages of completion, not a single component stands out above individual components coded by others. -sevag.k www.geocities.com/kahlinor
From: o//annabee on 14 Mar 2006 20:12
P? Wed, 15 Mar 2006 01:15:45 +0100, skrev randyhyde(a)earthlink.net <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net>: > > o//annabee wrote: >> >> I didnt say that this is the limit of the RosAsm macrossystem. I was >> refering to the standard, official RosAsm macroset. This set is >> assembly. >> But RosAsm has conditional macros and far more advanced macros then I >> ever >> needed. > > You obviously don't need very much. > Yet you claim that RosAsm is the most productive assembly language > system around without really knowing much about conditional assembly or > needing a powerful macro system. Those who *have* used powerful macro > systems would disagree with you on this. I am getting real tired of this. In fact. I have said 1000 times, all I wanted to say of RosAsm. And to my best ability it has all been true, and can be verified by everyone who wants too. Why I do not need more advanced macros? As long as RosAsm offers asm instructions, I can do without. I am not really very currious about macros, even I have seen some impressive use of them by other programmers. For a library, I would prefer to create a macro for the most in use instructions, to avoid writing the call eg: SetClientRect 20 20 120 40 which would resolve to a simply "call Section.SetClientRect" or "GetMem" that would resolve to "call Memory.GetMem" The conditional macros can be used to test for input parameters and to give errormessages. I havent used that yet, but may infact be a good idea. RosAsm is effective by the way it tend to have you working. A notepad is in comparion, a real poor joke. Thats why the RosAsm editor is a big part of the picture here. It is this integrated editor along with the debugger, the easy to grasp and use datamanagment that makes RosAsm so incredibly nice. Pluss all the useful sidekicks. Plus the speed. It the total package. But you know, I dont even use most of it. Because i have plenty of power allready. I dicovered the encoded dialog only a year or so ago, for instance. And you may also want to know, that when I am answering to the handle Randall Hyde, and it seem like I speak politly, this is not to you I speak politly, it is for anyone else who might possibly get to read it. Just so noone would ever doubt this! > > Cheers, > Randy Hyde |