Re: book on assembly language

The_Sage <The_Sage@xxxxxxx> écrivait
news:5i1c515i5fa402a8ce8gf3oj5gkjofq3uh@xxxxxxx:

>>[...]
>
>>Write one, and 1) you will have, at least... one,
>>2) You will see by yourself how easy it is and will
>>make up your mind of the many advantages of Programming
>>in Assembly.
>
> That isn't an argument at all, that is religious propaganda. If you
> try ASM than you will most certainly change your mind and accept ASM
> as the one and only true programming language above all other
> programming languages. I've been there and done that and like the vast
> majority of the world, it convinced me that ASM is the wrong way to
> go.

Show me were are your Assembly written Applications.
Maybe this will help you convincing me. :)


>>This is rather proven, now, that it is not me who could
>>convince the people, who think what you think that you
>>are wrong, but, the Tool itself, and the people themselves.
>
> More religious speak: If we don't see things your way, then the
> problem is because we lack faith in ASM. There is no way to see ASM
> other than your way and to doubt ASM is to sentence oneself to
> damnation.

Religions do not often propose to you to try & see
by yourself, you know... :)


>>>[...]
>
>>No. They used HLLs because the Compilers Authors were
>>in need of MONEY. There is no other reason than this
>>single one.
>
> That is total make believe bull***. Show me any legitimate history of
> programming languages that supports that claim. I can tell you right
> now, I know the actual history of programming langauges and that is
> not one of the reasons the vast majority of programmers have avoided
> ASM.
>
> PS -- They aren't called "authors" they are called "software
> developers" and they are hired in droves by a company to help write
> software that belongs solely to that company.

???


>>Why, is because you can write a new HLL every now and
>>then, make some Pub and SELL it. In Assembly this would
>>have been impossible because, once the guys are Asmers,
>>they do not have anything, anymore... to BUY. Period.
>
> More make believe crap. You can't support that religious claim with
> any facts. A simple web search shows that software companies make far
> more money than compiler manufacturers do.

???


>>All HLLs are evidently way INFERIOR "to Asm in terms of
>>maintainability, readability, and quality due to ease
>>of debugging". Did you only gave a little try to RosAsm
>>Debugger? Of course, NO, NEVER, EVIDENT. So...
>
> If RosAsm is as logical and reality-based as your arguments, I would
> never try RosAsm, but I don't need to try RosAsm to know it is a joke,
> anymore than I don't have to flush my head in a toilet to know I won't
> like that either. ASM is heavily machine dependent; HLLs are universal
> languages and therefore are not. ASM is requires that you fully
> understand the underlying architecture of the processor it is
> specifically written for and certain limited programming concepts;
> HLLs only require that you understand advanced programming concepts.
> ASM is strictly geared toward being machined code compatible; HLLs are
> geared towards being human readable.

Then, why do you discuss?


>>The fact that you write such a thing, so opposed to
>>truth and to any easily verifiable fact shows only
>>that you never gave Assembly a try. In such case, i
>>have nothing to answer but: Make yourself a favour,
>>try it.
>
> You don't know what a fact is, as evidenced by your make believe
> history of the evolution of programming languages, and your make
> believe reasons that companies don't choose ASM as their langauge of
> choice.
>
> Nobody in their right mind develops full fledged major applications in
> ASM and until they do, you are just talking out your ass about
> something you know nothing about.

For your information, GeoWorks Ensemble (The OS that
lost the OS Commercial war against MicroSoft Windows)
was written entirely in Assembly.


Betov.

< http://rosasm.org/ >

.