Re: Will HLA2.0 Support rosasm?

From: Percival (dragontamer5788_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 08/04/04 

Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 13:26:30 -0400

Betov wrote:
> "Dunny" <paul.dunn4@ntlworld.com> écrivait
> news:2nci0gFuu9hpU1@uni-berlin.de:
>
>
>>In news:2ncb13Fv6tgkU4@uni-berlin.de,
>>Percival <dragontamer5788@yahoo.com> typed:
>>
>>
>>>Supposedly HLA 2 is going to be self supporting. No need for a
>>>backend.
>>>Maybe Randall will keep this feature though cause it is pritty good.
>>>I doubt Betov will allow Randall to do this though.
>>
>>That's true - but I fail to see how Betov can possibly stop him.
>>
>>It'd be like the Masm team trying to stop HLA calling it to compile
>>code :-)
>>
>>I understand that Betov hasn't included a command line in his
>>compiler, oops, assembler, but when did that stop anyone from writing
>>a small exe that HLA calls, which starts RosAsm and then starts
>>flinging windows messages at it? Rene can't tell a mouse click from a
>>mouse click message! It'd look awful as it "automated" rosasm, but
>>what the hell - I'd get a giggle from it. I've done similar things to
>>other commercial programs before now, it'd be quite a laugh.
>>
>>And Betov really couldn't stop anyone from doing that, AFAICS.
>
>
> :)) :)) :))
>
> Indead this would be _very_ funny:
>
> - You just implement a Command Line holding in RosAsm Source,
> you branch it to the Editor, and force a "M00_Compile" Message
> into the MainWindowProc (2 Minutes of work).
>
> - You run a Batch file calling RosAsm with some Asm File,
> and you have succeeded to get an Assembler like any other
> Assembler, deprived of all of the tremendous advantages of
> the integrated IDE, of the Debugger, and so on...

I would rather see a commandline RosAsm than an IDE packet.

The advantages of having RosAsm as a command line:
1. You can still have an IDE for it. Ever try CodeWarrior or Eclipse?
They don't have Java compilers inside of them, they use external command
line compilers and they still are kick*** packages. Same with VC++ and
other awsome IDEs.
2. Others can develop an IDE for it. And thus improving the portability
and flexibility of RosAsm.
3. It would be much easier to add things on to RosAsm, such as HLA
support. But there are more things, like MakeFiles and emacs support and
vim support. While i know Betov isn't a linux fan, there are these
things for Windows and it would provide more functionality to RosAsm.
4. Command line automation. You can write a perl script that would
modify a file and change it to RosAsm format and then have it instantly
compiled.

> .. Plus, of course, the Packet of HLA *** in front of
> it all, and that would really be the most funny thing
> ever seen, since a very long time in the programming area.
>

What can't HLA (the language, not the implementation) do that other
asssemblers can? I am sure you can write a bootloader or linux driver on
  it.

Percival

Loading