Re: LuxAsm Development Team
From: Gerhard W. Gruber (sparhawk_at_gmx.at)
Date: 01/25/04
- Next message: Gerhard W. Gruber: "Re: RosAsm is easier to read than HLL code"
- Previous message: Gerhard W. Gruber: "Re: The Case Against RosAsm (#2)"
- In reply to: Betov: "Re: LuxAsm Development Team"
- Next in thread: Beth: "Re: LuxAsm Development Team"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 10:42:50 +0100
On 25 Jan 2004 00:02:54 GMT wrote Betov <betov@free.fr> in alt.lang.asm with
<XnF947BE485A45betovfreefr@213.228.0.32>
>Not directely: Each TITLE may be saved separatedly to disk.
OK. I thoguht that your IDE doesn't support somthing like that. Of course this
helps a little bit, but it still makes more work, because you have to take
your code and have to rip out the parts you need. If you use multiple files
then this would already be done.
>This would require to first write a version of RoaAsm,
>where each Api call would be replaced by a call to a Proc
>saved in a [OsCalls] TITLE (one Proc for each kind of Api
>call (...). only this, would be _much_ work. Then is is far
>from evident that the matching Functions are all available
>in X, as you suspect.
Of course you assume here that this is possible. But there are differences,
that you have to have a logical functionality in a seperate function. Having
the OS calls in a seperate function helps, but is not enough.
>But, admitting all of this would be possible and done, the
>subsitution of the two [OsCalls] (one for Linux, one for
>ReactOS), would be quite simple and easy.
In case of read/write, etc. this is true. In case of CreateWindow(Ex) this is
not true.
>I don't think that extracting the Assembler itself would
>be impossible, but also much work, because of the integration
>with "external" Functionalities.
That depends on how it is actaully coded. If the assembler is tightly
integrated with the i.E. Editor for some reason, then this will be quite hard
to do. Sure it is not impossible, but how hard it is depends on how the code
is written.
I worked once on a project where they had objects which would have been the
perfect objects to be seperated from the rest of the code. Like specialied
listboxes which can take their input over the network. These listboxes would
have been quite usefull for other projects we had, but they were written in
such a bad code that it was more work to extract the functionality then to
rewrite them from scratch. If they would have known object oriented
programming and designed the classes accordingly, then this would have been no
issue.
>So said, once done, the RosAsm Assembler standing alone would
>be of very poor interrest.
I don't think so but that is a matter of philosophy. :)
-- Gerhard Gruber Maintainer of SoftICE for Linux - http://pice.sourceforge.net/ Fast application launcher - http://sourceforge.net/projects/launchmenu
- Next message: Gerhard W. Gruber: "Re: RosAsm is easier to read than HLL code"
- Previous message: Gerhard W. Gruber: "Re: The Case Against RosAsm (#2)"
- In reply to: Betov: "Re: LuxAsm Development Team"
- Next in thread: Beth: "Re: LuxAsm Development Team"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|