Re: RosAsm?
From: The Half a Wanna bee (shakainzulu_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 04/09/04
- Next message: The Half a Wanna bee: "Re: Ann: Luxasm 00.01.00 (2004-04-08)"
- Previous message: The Half a Wanna bee: "Re: RosAsm?"
- In reply to: wolfgang kern: "Re: RosAsm?"
- Next in thread: The Half a Wanna bee: "Re: RosAsm?"
- Reply: The Half a Wanna bee: "Re: RosAsm?"
- Reply: wolfgang kern: "Re: RosAsm?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 00:42:36 +0200
wolfgang kern wrote:
> "The Wannabee" skrev(wrote):
>
> Evil sentence .., yes sorry,
Dont feel sorry. A ball is round even if some man wants to say that it
is square. Its still a sphere, not matter how many people tell that its
flat.
> but I'm tired to explain all the time,
Hmm. Yes. I belive this is the downside of intelligence, to allways have
to explain.? Feel free to ignore me. I will not take it the wrong way. I
promise.
> what's the main difference of hex-peoples KESYS philosophy vs.
> the 'oh so common' verbal-only understandable programming-style.
Then you'd agree with Betov that visibilty is important.
> My Levels of performance divided by convenience:
>
> 5. literal names USERs only
> 4. symbolic names HLL-programmers
> 3. mnemonics ASM-programmers
> 2. hex-notation BIT-LEVEL freaks
> 1. chip-elemental HW-designers
>
> I find myself between 1. and 2.,
> RosAsm can be ranked from 2 1/2 to 4. ,so I've gone for it.
To me if you write mov ax 0, mov ax &NULL or 66CD00, (I dont know the
correct opcodes at hand) is irrelevant as long as mov ax 0 is equally
unambigues.= means the same logic. I dont know if it is, there could be
some detail hiding in the encodings of the instructions that I am unable
to see. But I have been told that it is; the same. Theres a few things I
have noticed theese past two months. And one is : asm memonics, which
seemed alienating to me at first, is now much easier to read, and more
clear to me than hll, because of RESOLUTION. Maybe this will be true if
one uses only opcodes too? Seems likely. HLL can hide things. But with
the right click, I can take a fast look, if I doubt my own HLL abstract
code. One can also take a look at Delphi code, but need to locate the
proper RTL library, which takes time. Not impossible, just inconvinient.
In RosAsm, because of monofile and r-click, checking once assumtions is
sometimes only a few seconds for 4 procedures click*4, then 4 click on
white space. Excellent.
How you can write a huge codebase in hex only, I can only think possible
if one takes care to write flawless the first time. And then build on
that codebase. But, how easy is it for you to read your own code? Are
you mind allways tuned into it, do you never get tired or have to
stretch your mind to understand what you've written? How do you work?
Its seems you plan out everything first? By hand, and then code? Maybe
we could learn from you if you tell a little more about how you work?
Some guy in military told me, great chessplayers would be able to SEE
the board, instantly. They would _get_ the whole picture at once. My
brain only works like that for others things, like seeing "God" in a
flower. Like seeing the "Devil" in a church building. Like seeing
instantly that getting paper commersials in my mailbox is the workings
of a moron. And I see clearly, that given enough CPU power, terrorlike
AI will be not only possible, but WILL become reality. But then again,
you or Betov, would maybe call this a mental disease, rather then
seeing? But when seeing a page of asm memonics, I have to step through
them in my mind, to build a picture. Are you like that chessplayer? Can
you SEE in another way? Is this the intelligence you speak of ?
>
> | > top-IQ kids, who may once write a whole Os during one or two days.
> | 1 or 2 days ? Are you serious ? Hell. That hurt !
>
> Ok, an exaggerated example ;)
> but not far away from truth. If everything is clear in mind,
> only a few information are needed to paste this scheme onto
> any new CPU. Portability of the idea rather than of syntax.
Just for curriosity. What is definition for top IQ nowadays ?
> DATABASE-Administrators, WEB-DESIGNER and similar high-titled
> computer-jobs are good examples for the 'needed average'.
> Yes playing is the way to learn without consequences ;)
Ah. Clever you :-) You got me there.
> IQ and logical thinking aren't necessarily always bound to each other.
Thats interesting. Can you elaborate a little? I knew a girl who had top
in all subjects in school, but she seemed otherwise to be "stupid",
like the other kids threw coins into the hard to get to places, she
would pick them up. She was very intelligent, but few people could reach
into her. I certainly could not. As far as I know, she couldnt have an
ordinary job at all. She had no EQ,they say, but I doubt it, its
probably they who dont have it. Because I know she have friends.
>
> But after the first hurting bounce, I'd change the method ;)
>
Lol. I do, a little to the left, remember :-) I guess you ment a more
dramatic change. Maybe I should turn around 180 degrees and use the back
of my head instead. :-)
> No I'd call this 'learning from experience'.
> [an artificial German word for it is "Probier-grammier"] :)
:-) Oki. I forgot all my german. See you around Wolfgang.
>
> __
> wolfgang
>
>
>
- Next message: The Half a Wanna bee: "Re: Ann: Luxasm 00.01.00 (2004-04-08)"
- Previous message: The Half a Wanna bee: "Re: RosAsm?"
- In reply to: wolfgang kern: "Re: RosAsm?"
- Next in thread: The Half a Wanna bee: "Re: RosAsm?"
- Reply: The Half a Wanna bee: "Re: RosAsm?"
- Reply: wolfgang kern: "Re: RosAsm?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|