Re: Structures in Assembly Language
From: Ed Beroset (beroset_at_mindspring.com)
Date: 08/22/04
- Next message: Betov: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Previous message: xby: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- In reply to: Betov: "Re: Structures in Assembly Language"
- Next in thread: Betov: "Re: Structures in Assembly Language"
- Reply: Betov: "Re: Structures in Assembly Language"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:15:02 GMT
Betov wrote:
> The Wannabee <Faq@.@.@.@szmyggenpv.com> écrivait
> news:opsc38u5dk1xwheh@news.broadpark.no:
>
>
>>På Sun, 22 Aug 2004 02:44:42 GMT, skrev Ed Beroset
>><beroset@mindspring.com>:
>>
>>
>>>But that aside, I think your case is even thinner. Why NOT use real
>>>structures? You've given no reasons at all.
>>
>>I given plenty of reasons in various post.
>>
>>1) The way I write them, they are just as capable. They help me
>>structure my data.
>>2) They help me write readable.
>>3) They are just as productive
>>4) They do not hide anything.
>>5) They are very easy to learn as they are just simple equates.
>
> ... and, if i may add:
>
> * They are Assembly Compatible.
The phrase "assembly compatible" is without useful meaning, so this
doesn't add anything.
> * They are compatible by RosAsm Right-Click feature.
It would be a shame to be forced to avoid useful concepts in assembly
language programming solely due to limitations of the tool. The way I
tend to do things is to figure out what I want to do first, and THEN
pick the tool which best matches the job.
> * They are way easier to debug.
Since RosAsm doesn't support the alternative, how can you make this
determination? Can you describe the differences and say *why* they're
easier to debug?
> PS. Ed, you are nothing but one of those old guys, used
> to do the things the way you are used to do them, and who
> has the most rigid difficulties to understand that a new
> Tool might be _superior_ to to your old toys.
There are quite a number of things wrong with this single sentence.
1. Who I am has really nothing to do with structures, and whether or
not they're a better way to organize data in assembly language
programming. Let's debate the merits of the ideas, not the merits of
the participants.
2. Attempting to use equates to approximate structures is actually a
very old practice, common before more capable assemblers were available,
so rather than advancing a new technique, you're trying to move us
backwards by two or more decades. As an "old guy" I have first-hand
experience with both techniques, and it's how I know one is better.
3. If you have a case for *why* non-structures are superior to
structures, you should make the case using real examples, showing how it
would be done one way and then the other, noting the differences, and
explaining why one is better. That's what I've been doing.
> Now, when taking of "primitive tools", about RosAsm and my
> refuse of implementing C-Like Structures,
Actually, I don't use RosAsm, and don't really know much about it. My
mention of "primitive tools" was in reference to the method of
representing data structures using inadequate equate mechanisms. NASM
has the same problem.
> whereas you are
> using utterly overpassed Assembly Compilers like MASM and
> TASM, for your simple old fashion Demos,
Actually, I don't use either MASM or TASM very often these days. As for
the simple old-fashioned demos, you're absolutely right. Much of the
code on my web site is positively ancient. The most popular download
seems to be loader.asm, which was originally written in 1994. If you
look at that code (available at http://www.beroset.com ) you'll see that
it also happens to make extensive use of structures. Interestingly,
this is exactly the kind of code that is impossible to create in RosAsm
(since, as I understand it, RosAsm can't do 16-bit or non-Windows code),
so clearly there are still uses for and interest in other tools.
> even without
> considering the ethical side of the story, you are making
> a fool of yourself, at your only expand.
If there are ethical dimensions to this discussion then perhaps they
would include these. Here are the guidelines I try to apply:
1. intellectual honesty -- try to elicit all of the evidence both for
and against an idea rather than only presenting one side.
2. integrity -- tell the truth and be honorable in your dealings with
others.
3. respect for others -- try to write with respect for others; both
those involved in the conversation and those who might just be reading
either now or ten years from now in newsgroup archives.
As for making a fool of myself, I could do that much more easily by
attempting to write in French! Your English may not be perfect, but
it's a whole lot better than my French. I can reliably order wine, and
say please and thank you, but that's about my limit in that language.
Once I learn Russian a little better, I might try learning French next.
I find human languages as interesting as computer languages, but alas
there are too many of both for one person in one lifetime.
Ed
- Next message: Betov: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- Previous message: xby: "Re: order of operands in HLA"
- In reply to: Betov: "Re: Structures in Assembly Language"
- Next in thread: Betov: "Re: Structures in Assembly Language"
- Reply: Betov: "Re: Structures in Assembly Language"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
