Re: A (mild-mannered) defense of RosAsm Rocks !!!

From: The Half A Wannabee ("The)
Date: 02/29/04 

Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:15:23 +0100

"donkey" <donkey*nospam*@ntl.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:vFg0c.68566$ee3.696483@news20.bellglobal.com...

> Conditional assembly has nothing to do with keeping code size low. If
> you had any grasp of the API you would realize that it is sometimes
> advantageous to compile separate executables targetted to the Windows
> version it will run on.

And you cannot do this in RosAsm, you think ? lol.

>For example NT5 (2K/XP) use wrapper functions
> for ANSI calls. This can add in some cases (like GetWindowTextA) several
> hundred clocks to the call as opposed to it's Unicode couterpart.

???? What are you talking about here. DoesNT use wrapper functions. Please
expain this more clearly. As you say, I am not that known to this Os, so I
dont understand. How can you avoid the wrappers ?

> Conditional assembly let's you build a Unicode and ANSI version from the
> same source.

How come ? How can conditinal assembly avoid something done by the OS ? And
how can the same functionality not be done inside the code ? At little loss.

>In a great many cases the library itself (DLL) is not
> available on all OS versions, an untargetted application will fault at
> startup when it tries to load the DLL.

This never happens without depending on theese other DLLs. This is part of
the no end troubles that using libraries like that will get you in.
Optimizing a GetWindowTextA call seems pretty unneeded to me. you NEVER need
to call it. Not ONCE ! EVER ! Unless of course, you are using it as cliboard
between your other applications. Heck Donkey, is that what you do ?

Conditional assembly is critical
> to building applications that are optimal for their target OS and if
> CowardAsm can't do it,

Why do you call it Coward asm ?

>well then it is a useless peice of junk for most
> real commercial purposes. It will never be more than a toy, and a badly
> designed one at that, until it can use static code libraries and handle
> conditional assembly. Even GoAsm which is considered a "bare-bones"
> assembler supports both of these.

Well until you can give a better use of conditional "assembly", than reading
the GetWindowTextA, I cannot understand why you need it.

>
> Also if the coward claims that he prefers sniplets to static libraries,

I dont know who you are refering to. Can you please say it out load ?
Otherwise people will start wondering if you are not talking about yourself.

> are you obliged to keep every sniplet in a separate file and paste it
> into the source ?

No, I have never found use for a single snipplet yet. Havent even looked at
them. RosAsm is more than powerful enough as it is.

>That would be just stupid, better to just keep them
> all together and compile only the ones you want based on flags, leaving
> the others uncompiled. You cannot get around the fact that every modern
> assembler requires conditional assembly, otherwise it's just more 1970's
> style garbage.

Maybe we cannot get around it. But first you will have to give a valid
argument why they are so desperatly needed. The GetWindowTextA, doesnt cut
it.

>
> Donkey
>