Re: Rene is a hypocrite (OK, what else is new?)

From: The Half A Wannabee ("The)
Date: 02/07/04 

Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 21:12:03 +0100

"Randall Hyde" <randyhyde@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cf9Vb.15091$F23.10319@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "The Half A Wannabee" <ShakainZulu_AT(Nightwish - She Is My Sin
> (Live).mp3)_Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:402506fd$1@news.broadpark.no...
>
> H.A.W., you really need to pick up a copy of Steve McConnell's
> "Code Complete" and read it from end to end.

Maybe you mean : from *beginning* to end ? I would not want to make a review
just from the backcover of it ;-)

>If you think that the
> standard RosAsm coding style is an example of "easy to read code"
> well, more power to you.

Thanks for the info. But I allready new that.

>But I think you'll be saddened to find that
> the average programmer doesn't think so.

I dont know any avarage programmers. :-) Lol. But I guess you know them all.
They are much likely HLX programmers :-))

> If you think that arbitrarily
> slipping underscores into an indentifier makes that identifier easier to
> read, especially when the compiler doesn't check to ensure that you've
> got the underscore in the right place, then you have a basic
> misunderstanding of what programmers consider "good programming
> style" and "easy to read code".

I give you a small point here. Underscores in Identifiers should only be use
to add clearity. If they dont no need for them. But its wrong to assume
RosAsm doesnt detect it. It does.What you seem to do is you make the
assumtion that anyone with more than to living braincells would use 4
diffrent identifiers like this:

Current_Window_Handle
CurrentWindow_Handle
Current_WindowHandle
CurrentWindowHandle

Why on the mother****ing earth would they do this ? Your point is what ?
That we as programmers will try to confuse ourself as much as possible ? If
you declared those like above : RosAsm would tell you, you declared 4
identical variables. I have trouble thinking you could be this ******

>
> Sure, you can write
> Current_Window_Handle
> CurrentWindow_Handle
> Current_WindowHandle
> CurrentWindowHandle
>
> But the average person is going to expect these to be different
> items (complaining, of course, that you shouldn't create such
> similar identifiers).

okey, unravel ******. You must be Randy. Only a nutcase would claim to have
4 diffrent identifiers with the exact same name.

>Just a load of confusion.

LOL. So having 4 diffrent identifiers, with the exact same charakters in
them, is NOT confusing ???? Do you mean something else and I dont understand
? So what do you mean then ?

> Naturally, a
> *good* programmer would never do anything like the above
> on purpose,

Fully agreed. Obviously only you !

> but it is quite possible for such things to accidentally
> find their way into your code. It would be nice if the assembler
> reported such problems.

It _does_ report thoose problems, and NO its not "quite possible" at all in
RosAsm. But of course, maybe in HLA ? RosAsm is MONOFILE, and ALL the
benfits that comes with that (with intelligent monofile handling). So it
will NEVER become a problem, when you are unaware of theese things. You're
unable to see it right?

> You really need to learn a thing or two about the following terms in
> compiler and programming language theory:
>
> binding
> scope
> attributes
>
> Needless to say, your ignorance is showing through loud and clear,
> as usual.

I dont need to learn anything from you. This has become very clear to me
now. I have no problem with beeing ignorant, I know for a fact that I am in
many areas, but beeing made even more so by a dishonest old dead fart like
you, will never happen. You are either lying through your teeth or a
complete moron. Giving yet another hopeless argument that just are painfully
unfounded.
>
> Well, here are a couple of claims he has made that are completely false:
>
> 1. AoA was created to support HLA (rather than vice versa).

Maybe. But AoA is no longer very useful, unless HLA is involved. Thats why I
lost it after chapter 3. Rewrite everything to use assembler instead and not
the dumbed down HLA.

> 2. Randall Hyde stole the idea of underscores from SpAsm rather than
> taking the idea from other programming languages (e.g., Ada).

Who cares? But Betov have much more credability than you. Beeing angry at
the way things are currently done in the corporate world is not only
recommendable, but shows wakefulness and intelligence. Those who cannot see
how everything is intertwined may think that, yes HLA is innoscent. It takes
a bit of thinking to see that in reality this is not so. While admittedly
hard to pinpoint in a short reply, the energy brought forth in HLA *is*
working againts assembly, not for an expert perhaps, but for beginners. The
key points have been voiced many times in this NG. Go back and have a look
at the various standpoints. And ignore the heat. Go beyond the faul language
and just see the arguments.

> 3. The behavior of underscores in HLA is the same as RosAsm (they
> are not, even in numbers the behavior is different).
>

> And implied in all of this is the claim:
>
> 4. Randall Hyde thinks so highly of RosAsm that he has borrowed
> several features from the language.
>

You have admitted you have borrowed from many many languages. In your head,
creating the ultimate language. The ultimate spagetty, not even compatible
from the last v.1.x to the next ?

> In fact, the only really novel idea present in RosAsm/SpAsm at all
> is the concept of burying the source code in the executable file.

No you misinformed JediApe. This is but ONE awsome feature of RosAsm. Others
are:

* Data in code sections or anywhere else
* Increadible easy to grasp, powerful macrosystem
* To the point, short, very well explained helpfiles
* Monofile, with many uniqe monofile features including
* Right-Click
   - View code. jump to code(instantly)
   - View macro -> go to declaration (Instantly)
    - View help , open help file in the exact topic for every single item
(instantly)
    - View variable, jump to declaration(instantly)
    - View EQU , jump top declaration(instantly)

The right click feature is espesially nice in a monofile architecture. It
makes you able to read code magnitudes faster than in any other assembler.
And since everything is there, you will never hit a blind spot. Ever. Except
when dealing with the OS, but then you're in the dark in any tool. In this
case you can get short help from RosAsm. In many OS calls you can step
through the OS code in the debugger. But this is not possible for all OS
code, but for many it can be done.

* DoubleClick
   - Search for word up
   - Search for word down
   - Search for word From top
   - unfold macro
   - more
* Local labels
* Local variables
* Local macro spesific labels A-Z (0-9)
* TITLES to seperate code modules. This is an awsome feature, it "divides"
the monospace into seperate sections, and doesnt hinder us when we work on
the monofile.
* D$, B$, W$ to instead of DWORD PTR [] BYTE PTR [] WORD PTR[]
Theese are very intelligent, and makes addressing much easier. Hard to
explain why, they put together the one missing piece in your head that made
you confused as a beginner.

To read more about this awsome assembler that is much more feature loaded
than it appears at first glance take a look at
http://betov.free.fr/RosAsm.html

> That was a new idea I'd personally not seen before. Nearly every
> other concept Rene has come up with in the *assembler* has been
> done *years* before (and usually, on the order of *50 years* before).

So why I havent seen it before ? If theese feature was present 50 years ago,
supply links that proves you claim. I want 50 years old software that does
the same.

> The fact that Rene hasn't done the research to make these discoveries
> is really his own fault. Indeed, his claims that all these ideas are his
> own really borders on plagiarism.

He _DOESNT_ claim that you shitless jedi.

> That's easy to believe (that he invented it on his own).

Are you a very confused man ? Look two sentenses up for the complete oposite
of this.

> Rene doesn't bother
> checking out how other software behaves on the PC. His disassembler is
> a good example of this. His editor is a good example of this. Once in a
> while
> he might stumble onto something good, by accident. Often, though, by not
> considering successful solutions that already exist, he winds up creating
> some really bizarre code with really bizarre features (e.g., not
> automatically
> supplying scroll bars when the file is longer than one screen, not
> automatically
> handling the font's pitch when the user changes fonts, not having
> "cut/copy/paste"
> in the edit menu where it belongs, etc., etc.).

The omision of scrollbars is intentional, and NOT NEEDED. Do you allways
include a scrollbar just so everyone can have a scrollbar to look at ? Never
occured to you that it is stealing from the space devoted to sourcecode ?

>
> Cheers,
> Randy Hyde

What you spent XX years at with your AoA (one of the *names* you got right)
and HLA, Betov did much better, after serving the society as a carpenter for
40 years. He did it in his pension age. Much better, clearer and smarter
that you ! You must after all have seen this, and now your so envyous that
can think straight, and spend all your time putting it down. That even a
Wannabee like me, a assembler beginner, can crush your poor attempts at
degrading and destroying RosAsm. It will never be Randall. HLA is dead. Long
live RosAsm.