Re: Segmentation in real mode

From: Betov (betov_at_free.fr)
Date: 03/12/05 

Date: 12 Mar 2005 11:36:02 GMT

Herbert Kleebauer <klee@unibwm.de> écrivait news:4232D11F.A23FD459
@unibwm.de:

> Frank Kotler wrote:>
>
>> 32-bit programming, in itself, is *easier* than 16-bit
>> programming - no worries about segments, and the addressing
>> modes are much more flexible. Once you feel ready to make
>> the switch (I'd learn how "call" and "ret" work - how to use
>> the stack to pass parameters, and keep the stack "sane"), I
>> think you'll like 32-bit programming... so don't waste *too*
>> much time with dos!
>
> It is not fair to tell this old but wrong fairytale
> to newcomer.

Yes, it _is_ fair. The opposite is evidently unfair.

> DOS doesn't restrict you in any way to
> to 16 bit operand size or 16 bit addressing modes
> and you are also not bound to real/v86 mode.

Then how is it that 99,999999...% of Dos posted examples
are 16 Bits .com Files?

> For learning assembly programming, there is nearly
> no difference between using DOS or Windows:

The very first one is that, with DOS, they are learning
stuff, that nobody uses since ages. So forth, learning
how to program an Application that nobody will even take
a look at, is simply demential.

> in
> DOS you are restricted in the amount of usable memory
> (but this really doesn't matter for learning assembly
> programming) and there is much less overhead in DOS
> than in Windows (executable file format, OS API) which
> makes it much easier to start assembly programming in DOS.

There are other interrest in Assembly than "learning Assembly".
For example, writing Applications in Assembly.

Assembly is not a Language for learning Assembly. All Languages
are for doing _something_.

> As an example a program which calculates the md5 hash
> for stdin. There is no way to tell if this is a Win32
> or a DOS program. It can be assembled for both, all
> you have to do is to insert the proper getc, putc and
> exit functions.

If so, why doing it for a dead OS?

You are just giving the proof that there is no reason
for spoiling time with DOS, with your own example! How
can you fail to see this? ... Stucks me... :(

Betov.

< http://rosasm.org/ >

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is there any hope for Microsoft ?
    ... Do not confuse the crap with the language. ... the core problem was that the "keeper of the keys" for MS Basic did ... I started in VB 1 for DOS, and its always been tinkered with. ... documented method for handling binary data was with strings. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: What is the name of the 4DOS language?
    ... While technically true, the platforms known as PC-DOS, MS-DOS, DR-DOS, ... PTS-DOS, etc. actually contain the token "DOS" in their formal product ... As UNIVAC's ECL is (Executive Control Language), ... Most of the shell scripts I've seen start with #/bin/sh, ...
    (comp.os.msdos.4dos)
  • Re: StrongForth 1.4 supports OOP
    ... every Windows PC. ... Most programmers today want a 32-bit language. ... I'm surprised that this is only for DOS. ...
    (comp.lang.forth)
  • Re: PCB design.
    ... electronics or any programming language and get stuck in. ... Only an idiot would write that many lines of assembler ... I started programming DOS when the base IBM-PC machine ... was 16K with a single floppy disk. ...
    (sci.electronics.cad)
  • Re: How can to write a c program without a main()
    ... > language has only way as an entry point for a program is main ... > function in DOS environment and WinMain function in Windows ... Do really think C gets is use of mainfrom DOS? ...
    (comp.lang.c)