Re: Unicode Support

Rene wrote:
> Beth wrote:
> > [... Shames...]
>
> Ah! I was wondering how long i would have to
> wait before you could came at the rescue of
> your good old friends, master Randall Hyde,

A complete fabrication; At no point in my post did I make any reference to
HLA, AoA or Randy or anything remotely related to him or his software
tool...

Not a single thing...re-read it...don't "snip" all of it away, so that you
can pretend there's nothing I said which you need to address...as I made
very specific points regards RosAsm string support to which you _DO_ need
to answer...or, otherwise, other readers will rightly conclude that I am
_RIGHT_ about what I say in every word...and you are "snipping" my post
then insulting it, as a means to "evade" answering the specific charges
made against you and your software tool...

Re-read it and if you find a single reference to HLA, AoA, Randy, anything
Randy has said or otherwise then _POST IT HERE_...bring this to everyone's
attention to _DEMONSTRATE_ your "accusation" that I was in any way
"defending Randy"...not that I wouldn't do so or haven't done so...but, in
this case, you've made a specific charge about a specific post as doing so,
yet that post does NOT contain what you say it does whatsoever...

Indeed, you remove my post _ENTIRELY_ in quotation and then simultaneously
claim it says things it DOES NOT say...you are delibrately trying to
misrepresent what I'm saying while failing to provide even a single line of
the post to which you are objecting and creating "terrible illusions" about
what it _actually said_...

> and Hutch--, our prefered Right-Wing bastards.

I don't think I've ever uttered a word of support for hutch's repeated
childish postings...and would certainly not "defend" him whatsoever, as I
often find his postings to be repugnent in their content: All insult, no
actual useful point worth making (at least, in the majority of cases)...

What I specifically said was:

Beth wrote:
> Ah, but that's your first mistake, Chewy: Randy is developing a "HLL
> pre-parser sub-*** swindling trap", not an "assembler" ;)...

Does this in any way misrepresent your opinion of HLA?

Yes, I have fielded a number of your insults against Randy and HLA into
"one big insult"...but all of these are _YOUR_ charges against Randy and
HLA, are they not?

You consider me merely repeating _YOUR OWN ARGUMENTS_ back at you as being
"defending Randy and HLA" (while, in this post, NOT a single word is
mentioned of Randy, HLA, AoA or anything remotely related to them)?

So, you're telling us that your own argument "defends" Randy and "defends"
HLA?

Because in this post, all I did was begin by echoing _YOUR_ own arguments
back at you (and, yes, making a mockery of them...this would not be a
possibility, if they were not mock-worthy in themselves for being so vacant
in content, so transparent in motivation to attack others, so unfounded in
reality and such figments of your own imagination)...and then, after that,
I merely used _YOUR OWN WORDS_ from B_U_ASM to specifically demonstrate
your opinions and advice regards "string resources"...before explaining a
few of the uses - as suggested by Microsoft themselves (so how on Earth, in
creating a Win32 specific assembler, you did not yourself _READ_ these
pieces of suggestion and rationale from Microsoft yourself...well, this
suggests that you don't even really know the Win32 API set to a level of
sufficient qualification for the position of "Win32 specific assembler
author" to which you set yourself up as an "expert"...we've _ALREADY SEEN_
repeated and seriously misguided claims about Windows and Win32 from your
RosAsm "students", who appear NOT to be being taught the facts by you at
all...indeed, in your quest to "fight Microsoft", you've created an army of
"Windows defenders", who fight tooth and claw...not against Microsoft but
to _DEFEND_ them...hutch redistributes an actual Microsoft product and even
he has not been able to master creating such a devoted "army" of Microsoft
defenders as you are producing...other than MASM, the assemblers you
attack - FASM, HLA, NASM, etc. - are all capable of functioning on
non-Microsoft OSes...something your "weapon against Microsoft" cannot do...

No wonder you cannot address - or even stomach - looking and answering
_YOUR OWN ARGUMENT_ because it is so void of reality, it has gone and
achieved the _EXACT OPPOSITE_ aim to that which you claim you were a
"warrior" "fighting" against...you are such a disgrace to any "cause" of
fighting Microsoft that we seriously have to start considering whether you
are, in fact, _working for_ Microsoft to _promote_ Windows...and that your
claims otherwise are merely "reverse psychology" tactics (because though
you _claim_ to fight Microsoft, your every action _SUPPORTS_ them)...

What I specifically said was:

Beth wrote:
> While hutch is developing his "dictionary arse"...Thomasz and John Found
> are "assholes"...

Note: No mention of Randy or HLA or anything related to those things
whatsoever...

Did you or did you not charge hutch with being a "dictionary ass"?

Did you or did you not consider Thomasz and John Found to be "assholes"?

A simple "yes" or "no" answer will do...

I was only _REPRESENTING YOUR WORDS AND OPINIONS_...

Yes, I did so mockingly but I personally feel that such a vacant and
corrupt set of opinions deserves not to directly challenged and not
"tolerated" for politeness when they are so out-of-kilter with reality,
common decency, factual accuracy and so forth...

There are your own words...your own opinions...your own argument...if you
cannot bear to look at it...if you cannot in any way address it...if you
feel you must "evade" even your own opinions...well, then you already know
what's wrong...and you already know what must be done...

You claim to be a "warrior" and not a coward...so, well, if you would
rather it be you who dons the "white knight" armour and comes in "rescue"
and defence of the _TRUTH_, then I'd be more than happy to hand it over to
you, should you prove chivelrous enough to qualify for the position...I am
not fond of fighting or swords or such...it would make sense that a
"warrior for truth", as you seem to want to be, were to take this role of
defence rather than me...but as you're actually more concern with saving
your own ego (which you appear to "keep safe" up your own arse) than
usefully fighting for truth, then it would be grossly irresponsible to
leave things in your charge...

> < http://rosasm.org/ >

I urge others, who have the time and disk space, to go to this URL and
download RosAsm...give it a try...

I'm confident that most people will feel that Guga's gargantuan effort to
compile the "equates list" and other comprehensive Win32 support - which is
a true convenience (though, other than accessing it via a dialogue box, how
this differs from a set of full and comprehensive header files for other
assemblers like MASM, NASM and such, is anyone's guess) - has been _GROSSLY
LET DOWN_ by Rene's "barely passable" tool...

I second Randy's opinion that you should be pitied because the _potential_
of RosAsm was immense...but what you've created is a pale shadow of what
you've promised...indeed, the comprehensive "equates list" support _IS_ one
of the best things in RosAsm and it was _GUGA_ who worked on that...the new
"visual wizards" for creating windows that are being developed _by others_
looks excellent...while _your_ "icon editor" is a slap-dash affair that
only supports one size, 16 colours, provides no tool but pixel plotting and
has rather "cryptic" button controls...where, somehow, we're supposed to
guess whether "<" is "load" or is ">" the "load"? Left and right arrows
have no relation to "load" and "save" (except perhaps in your mind)...your
hash algorithm had problems that you wouldn't even acknowledge were
there...

There is a clear pattern: What you, Rene, code for RosAsm is typically
"slap-dash" with no care and "half done" while you hand over the _real
work_ to Guga and others, who's excellent efforts are _GROSSLY LET DOWN_ by
being attached to a tool that has "half done" written all over it...and,
from what you've said are your aims for RosAsm, then the actual
implementation of those aims are a severe let-down...you had such potential
but have, basically, squandered it all by diffusing your efforts and
spreading them so thinly - spending more time attacking others - that what
you personally have produced is nowhere near fulfilling the immense
potential RosAsm had...you've let your strange "philosophy" get in the way
of delivering the tool that _SHOULD HAVE BEEN_...

> PS. Interresting to notice that, when it is
> for denigrating RosAsm, you are able to read
> B_U_Asm, and to Copy-Paste the parts where
> i honestly talk about RosAsm real limitations,
> whereas, when it is for some interresting
> feature, you simply... do not know... :)

Untrue; There is no "editing" applied whatsoever...what is annoying you
really is that I did produce a RosAsm example (a "five minute" job...but it
was only to demonstrate a particular point being made about Windows, so
wasn't worth wasting more time than that on it)...so you know that there is
no "phantom book review" here whatsoever...I have used your tool to create
a working application (okay, not a terribly exciting or big
application...but it did the job it was designed to do, in making a point
clear)...and, as such, I _DO_ have at least a basic appreciation of what
RosAsm offers the programmer...and that I'm still not impressed in the
slightest...

It is possible to create slap-dash monolithic "demos" with RosAsm...but,
for anything more complicated, RosAsm would start to get in the way with
its backwards "philosophy" and inadequate "limitations" everywhere, while
NOT assisting in writing the code...

What is that phrase which teachers like to write on school report cards?
"Could do better"

Well, in your case, "could do an awful lot better"...as this is even what's
worse about RosAsm: It's not even really making it up to the standards of
what you talk about in your "philosophy" rants (which themselves are
unnecessarily limiting and restrictive to no useful purpose for the
programmer)...

> Yes, the RosAsm Resources Manager is limited.

And as there is no other choice with RosAsm "philosophy", don't you feel
that this limitation is an inherent limitation of RosAsm itself?

> The Lang IDs are not yet implemented, and the
> Named IDs are only implemented for the Disassembler,
> but not yet for the Assembler... Yes...
>
> SHAME ON YOU, Beth!

I see absolutely no shame whatsoever for bringing a legitimate and specific
concern about the limitations of RosAsm - that which you yourself above
completely confirm _ARE_ actual limitations on the programmer using RosAsm
(which I know because I've given full and fair attempt at using your tool
throughout its development - as I do for most tools - and tracked its
progress and have attempted to create code - such as the example posted -
using your tool...and, repeatedly, I always find the inherent limitations -
some of which, unbelievably, you _design_ to be present in the tool
(absurd! Creating a tool with the _intention_ of crippling it? Are you a
sadist or something?) - present in RosAsm to be so restrictive and that
continually getting in the way of progress, that, indeed, I have come to
the conclusions that I have and voice these _LEGITIMATE CONCERNS_ about
RosAsm publicly) - to yours and public attention...

On the contrary, Rene...shame on _YOU_...because you have stated on this
newsgroup repeatedly before that you felt RosAsm was effectively "complete"
as it stands...and now you openly admit to being perfectly aware of the
failing of "the RosAsm Resources Manager is limited" and a list of
unimplemented and half-done attributes in RosAsm?

That would be "false advertising", would it not? Delibrately and
consciously done that, yes, _SHAME ON YOU_ for willingly doing such a
thing...and as you seem to have no conpunction about outrightly _lying_
regards RosAsm, how exactly do you expect us to believe anything you say on
these points? You tell us that "monofile programming" is great and
excellent (though, those with sufficient programming experience _ALREADY
KNOW_ that's another falsehood to "sell" your assembler with "terrible
illusions" on "young heads")...but you've tried to suggest that RosAsm was
"complete"...yet when we ask you about specific facilities (and, as noted,
the "LANG ID" on string resources is pretty important because _THAT_ is the
typical advantageous use of having them in a program...the other advantages
of "string resources" you've already "nullified" by RosAsm's "monofile"
design itself), you tell us that "this is unimplemented, that is
unimplemented, something else is half-done"? You say "complete" when you
want to "sell" it but admit to "half done" and "unimplemented" when
actually forced to address _specific_ concerns about RosAsm...

If your word cannot be trusted on this point, then how can it be trusted on
other points like the supposed advantages of "monofile programming"?

Especially because "monofile programming" _IS_ completely supported by
"modular" toolsets...it's simply the "special case" of only using _ONE_
module...anyone who's used a modular tool such as NASM or HLA or FASM or
_ALL_ the others (as only your tool fails in this regard, by _delibrately
crippling itself_ to a single case, for no validly supplied reason you've
ever given) will know perfectly well that if they _WANT_ to put all their
source code into a single file, then they are completely free to do so
(provisor: Resources are placed in a separate source file for the resource
compiler...BUT, in RosAsm, resources are NOT available in source code form
_EITHER_ and are dealt with through the GUI interface...thus, you are no
more advantageous then any other tool on the "exception" of Windows
"resources"...indeed, only _FASM_ - as far as I'm aware - directly supports
source code-based resource definition and, thus, is a _MORE APPROPRIATE_
tool for "monofile programming" than RosAsm (other than any assembler with
"flat binary" mode - such as FASM or NASM - can also be used to, of course,
"hand-code" any file at all...including resources and such)...

Hence, you present a needless _CRIPPLING_ of your tool to fully
_UNNECESSARY_ limitations and restrictions - which provide NO ADVANTAGE to
the programmer at all (but perhaps _YOUR_ "convenience" in programming it,
when you've made it so intrinsically "simplistic") - as a "benefit" of
RosAsm...this is utter nonsense...

Indeed, all the other tools are just as capable of "monofile
programming"...which is proved _REPEATEDLY_ on this newsgroup all the
time...because most source code posted tends to only require a single
source file, anyway...they can do what RosAsm does, no problems...RosAsm
cannot do what they do because you've delibrately _crippled_ your
tool...and have NEVER satisfactorily provided an answer to why you've done
this..."because libraries bloat programs"...yes, if _ABUSED_, they very
much can do...but, by the same token, "cut and paste" methods will _EQUALLY
BLOAT_, if used incorrectly (for example, instead of creating a subroutine,
a programmer simply copies and pastes the same code all over the place
repeatedly...unnecessarily "bloating" their code for "convenience":
_EXACTLY THE SAME CHARGE_ that can be made at those who _ABUSE_
libraries...

You have made a fundamental philosophical mistake in thinking that a _tool_
in any way is responsible for the _ABUSES_ programmers make of it...this is
a fundamentally flawed assessment...and you've cornered yourself into
chasing an impossible "ideal"...

Libraries may be "abused"? Remove libraries so they can't be used!

Macros may be "abused" for HLL-like features? Cripple...nay, remove the
macros!

"Cut and paste" may be "abused" to get library-like functionality? Remove
"cut and paste" so it can be used!

Saving source files separately might be "abused" to get library-like
functionality? Remove saving source file separately!

The "DB" feature might be "absued"! Limit...no...remove the "DB" feature!!

The machine instructions might be "abused"! Remove the machine
instructions!!!

What is going to be left if you continually pursue this flawed thinking?

Can you see that the whole premise of what you're doing is based on "bad
thinking"...that it has falsely decided that it's a tool's responsibility
to limit and restrict the programmer's means of "abuse"...

Yes, the facilities you provide might very well be "abused" by the
programmer...they may produce "bloated" code from doing so...they may use
macros to do terrible "HLL" things...but removing those facilities does NOT
in any way limit or prevent the capability of the programmer to _ABUSE_
whatever features you provide in ways that you do not like...

But, thank you, you admirably prove the underlying philosophical point with
an actual, real example:

"Creating more laws only creates more criminals, not less crime"

America also learnt this lesson when it prohibited alcohol...this did not
make the abuse of alcohol any less...in fact, it made it dreadfully
worse...because, once illegal, there were no "checks" or "balances" - no
"regulation" - applied...driving the otherwise law-abiding citizens into
the "speakeasy", where it was NOT solely alcohol that was "illegal"
there...introducing people to _FURTHER ILLEGALITY_...forcing them into a
"life of crime"...being illegal, the price sky-rockets (well, got to pay
your dealer some "danger money" for their efforts)...those addicted to the
drug will not cease their addiction when it's unaffordable (it would not be
"addiction" otherwise)...they will just take to stealing and other crimes
to raise the money to get their "fix"...so, rather than "cleaning up the
streets", such attitudes contribute to making them far worse...

If you want to stop "bloat" and such, Rene, then _EDUCATE_ people as to
what causes "bloat", what they can do to avoid it, supply "tips and hints"
from your programming experience of how to achieve things in "non-bloated"
ways...and so forth...kill the problem at its _SOURCE_...which isn't the
tools they use but their _THINKING_...

It's amazing to hear you condemn "conservatives" in America as
"Nazis"...and, yet, the first thing you think of when there's a problem?
"Prohibition!", "Attack!! Kill!!"...claim whatever you like for yourself
but that _IS_ a "conservative" mindset...well, no, to be fair to the more
moderate conservatives out there, it is far further "right-extreme" than
that, heading towards "fascist", really...yes, the self-proclaimed
"left-wing anarchist" (an oxymoron in itself), who, in actual fact, behaves
more conservatively - so "right-extreme" as to begin to qualify as
"fascist" in sentiment - than nearly anyone else on this entire
newsgroup...

Liberty is not the problem, Rene...so "limiting" and "crippling" and
"prohibiting" won't do a blessed thing to "solve" anything...Liberty is the
_SOLUTION_: Use your "freedom of speech" to _EDUCATE_ people...use that
Liberty which allows you to shout your "cause" as loud as any "HLL
theoretician", in order to _EDUCATE_ people of the truth...of how to get
out of "bloatware" mindsets...of how to create _efficient_ software...of
the merits of assembly language..._USE_ your Liberty - do not abuse it - in
order to _DO GOOD_...

Beth :)

--
"We need to counter the shockwave of the evildoer...by thinking about tax
rebates."
[ George W. Bush, Jnr. ]



.