Re: RosAsm Team is Still Making Excuses


\o//annabee wrote:


> >
> > As Rene would say at this point, where's the link? :-)
>
> Would it make any diffrence ?


Well, after all the acusations of lying and BSing you guys throw at me
all the time, *proving* that you've done what you said would, at least,
add a little credibility to what you say.

It's rather amusing listening to Rene state (and you parrot) that I
don't know the basics of assembly. Gee, anyone with 10 second's
knowledge on the subject can figure out that this is total B.S. I don't
have to "provide any links". They're already there (AoA, MASM Bible,
WGC, Using 6502 Assembly, PSource,...).

You, however, have made a very fantastic claim -- that you've rewritten
the Delphi VCL. Something that took Borland ten's of man-years to
develop. Even if you were the best coder in this newsgroup (and even
you admit that you are not), I would have a hard time believing that
you've duplicated what Borland spent years doing, especially when you
have such a limited knowledge of Borland's object Pascal, as determined
by past posts you've made on the subject.

Would it matter? Sure it would. You better believe I'm going to be
bringing up the VCL thing each and every time you make some claim
around here. Provide the link, and you'll save yourself some future
embarassment.


> <
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl889288806d&dq=&hl=no&lr=&selm=gxbob.8360%24Px2.7300%40newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net

> >
>
>
> > Search back through the Google archives of this very newsgroup.
You'll
> > find several posts where you admit that you just figured out how to
do
> > linked lists in assembly
>
> This last statement is correct. I never used linked list in Delphi.

And yet, you expect me to believe you reimplemented the Delphi VCL?

> Actually I _did_ in fact do it, but not the usual obvious way. In
other
> words, I wasnt aware I was using them, because I never read about
them,
> and didnt know how to recognize them. I used them by having a Owner
> property in my objects. This is basically a pointer to a "parent"
object,
> that the object is "contained" in and clipped against.
> (Like 5 buttons in a panel for instance).

Using the VCL is not the same as reimplementing it.

>
> But on the form of object.next , and object.prev I never used them. I
used
> a modified TList of pointers in each object, and did a loop in this
list
> when drawing. Now I do Object := Object.Next instead, but in assembly
it
> becomes :
> mov edi D$edi + Object.Next (where "Object.Next" is an equate)

I'm glad you've figured this out. I hope the use of byte variables is
next on your list of things to learn about. But the main point here is
that you're not instilling a whole lot of confidence in your claims
that you've reimplemented the VCL. Make all the side trips and raise
all the smoke you want. But you've still not done a very good job of
convincing me, or anyone else, that you've reimplemented the VCL. Wait,
strike that! I forgot, Rene has made some noises about all the great
object-oriented stuff you've done and how this is going to make RosAsm
object-oriented. Maybe *he* believes you've reimplemented the VCL?


>
> theres not really faster doing the object.next thing, but doing
linked
> list in assembly, and most other task as well, was very easy to do in

> assembly. Several orders of magnitude easier. This made me blissful
when I
> realized it myself, not only having heard about it, and that was the
spark
> that made me write that post.

Too bad you didn't figure this out when using Delpi. It would have been
a big help when you were reimplementing the VCL.

>
> > ("They're so easy") and you comments make it
> > very clear that you didn't have a clue how to do this in Pascal.
>
> Thats more or less correct.

And, as I said, this doesn't offer much credibility to your claims that
you've reimplemented the VCL.

>
> > I would be very interested in seeing how you rewrote the whole VCL
(many,
> > many, man-years of effort, btw) without understading basic issues
like
> > how to code a linked list in Pascal.
>
> Let me rephrase : I rewrote only the parts of the VCL I needed for my

> programs. The windows, the buttons, the editboxes, the grid, the
> scrollbar, the progress bar, the windows caption, plus a few others,
> Dropdownlist etc, and some added objects as well. Pluss I added in a
range
> of support that Delphi didnt have.

Oh, I see. Do you have a link? Nevermind, I can easily imagine how
you've reimplemented these things. The bottom line is that you make
*huge* claims, and then when you get called on it, we find out that the
result was not as impressive as you'd claimed.

> My apps could switch between DirectX
> rendering and GDI rending by a shortcut key. It was planned for them
to
> fallback to GDI when DirectX wasnt available. Or just to run in GDI
when
> DirectX wasnt wanted. Also I rewrote the Object class, the
persistentclass
> and all the other foundation classes that I needed. Also I rewrote
the
> memorymanager. I did this because I wanted to have a complete output
of
> every single byte taken by any object, so I could find out exactly
where
> each byte was residing, and what memory footprint any of my apps had,

> after some development cycles. I wrote a wrapper for DirextX7,
DirectShow
> and many many other things. I logged every call to order GDI
resources,
> and catagorized them, and even had debug definitions to calculate
exactly
> how many bytes of memory they used (GetObject etc). I also had a
> parallelled normal VCL replacemenst so I could choose to write a
program
> using skins or just use ordinary GDI objects, by changing a single
> DEFINITION
>
> You can see an example here :
>
> < http://szmyggenpv.com/downloads/SimpleViewer.exe >

You'll forgive me for not downloading and running an unknown binary
file from an obvious hacker type. :-)

>
> Just look at the insane size of that file. And look at how incredible
slow
> it is compared to my RosAsm stuff. The only diffrence now, is that I
am
> more in control of everything now, and my apps gets far better from
it.

Yes, you can write code poorly in any language. Given your posts about
Delphi in the past, you're expecting me to be surprised because you've
written some inefficient Delphi code? And it hasn't occurred to you
that just maybe, with what you've learned in the past year, you
couldn't go back and write better code in Delphi? Now granted,
Delphi's optimizer is pretty sad, but you remind me of myself when I
was a freshman and I once spent about six months thinking FORTRAN
programs were slower than APL programs because I'd written an app in
both languages and the APL version was about ten times faster. It
didn't occur to me that the machine running the FORTRAN program was
slower than the machine running the APL program (this was in the days
of punchcards, back in the days when programmers never got to touch the
machines). Perhaps before too long, you'll realize that the main
problem was the way you were writing code. I'm not going to suggest you
could beat the RosAsm code with Delphi, but I would suggest that the
difference doesn't have to be as great as you think it is.



>
> You can compare it, for functionality, with this:
> < http://szmyggenpv.com/downloads/MMEXBlue.Zip >
>
> Actually the RosAsm written stuff is very useful, where as the Delphi

> stuff more or less belong in the recycle bin. And the RosAsm source
code
> is much cleaner then the Delphi one. I can more or less assure you
that
> even the Delphi interface sections take more space than the majority
of my
> RosAsm code :))))

No doubt. Size is not Delphi's forte.


> If you want to look at the code, I upload it. God grief I am glad I
am not
> a Delphi programmer anymore!

I'm sure a lot of Delphi programmers share your enthusiasm that you
left that group of programmers. No doubt, there are many around here
who wish you would discover yet another language and move on. :-)

But at least you're happy. And given the small number of assembly
language programmers in the world, you're probably doing less damage in
assembly language than you could elsewhere.

>
> >> And for sure. Since I just created 1,x mega bytes of assembly
source
> > code,
> >
> > Cut & Paste works wonders, doesn't it?
>
> Yes, and it is also accurate in some sitations, if the code serve a
useful
> purpose. May I remind you that old code is actually some times BETTER
than
> new code. Old code is tested, and in general are likly to have less
bugs
> then new code.

Hint: that's why *libraries* are a good thing. And unlike cut&paste
code, you don't have to fix the bugs in your library routines in
multiple places once you find them. And, most importantly, when you use
library routines you wind up creating a *whole* lot less source code.
Which is why your claims about having produced "1,x mega bytes" is not
all that impressive. Gee, I can do that in a couple of minutes with an
editor.

A far better claim would be "I've written XXX,XXX lines of source code"
or "I've written N tested, debugged, and documented applications
(professional quality ones)." Granted, you're learning right now. And
we can't expect *that* much out of you. But if you're going to brag
about how productive you've been, you better be prepared to back up
those claims.


>
> There are nothing intrinsically wrong with code reuse.

Not at all. That's why *libraries* are good. But most people don't
count the code reuse as additional lines of source code they've written
(or, in the warped RosAsm metric, the "megas" of source written).

>
> Or maybe you are stupid enough for thinking you could copy and paste
from
> anywhere in code to do service in any other code section ? For
instance
> use the file scanning code to draw circles ?

No, I am suggesting that you've copied the code in a legitimate manner,
but the fact remains that software engineers to *not* count code reuse
as part of their work (other than the first implementation).

> Hmm. Interessting theory. For
> a shrink I mean. I urge you to go see one, Randall. I seriously mean
it.
> You need councelling. And I mean asap.

You should read a book on software engineering. And I mean ASAP. You
might learn how to spell, too. :-)

>
> >> I do not know what a byte is :))) :))) :)))
> >
> > That's what you say. Go back and read your own posts.
>
> So if I write 1,3 megas of asm code, and tell you I have never
encountered
> a byte, you would belive me ?

That's what you say. Go back and read your own posts.

> >
> > That's what you've said. Granted, no one around here has any faith
in
> > the truthfulness of what you say (you blew away any possible
> > credibility you had within a week of your first post to this
> > newsgroup), but if you *say* you don't have a use for byte
variables,
> > I'd take you on your word for it.
>
> Any man, that gives you ANY credibility in the asm arena. *ANY*, is
by
> definition a complete moron. Or a lier. Or both.

Whatever you say. But given your claims about having rewritten the VCL
(and backing *way* off from that), and your other grandiose claims
around here, what makes you think anyone would believe the statement
above any more than they would believe anything else you say? Indeed,
you have (as Rene has) crossed over the line at which point people are
more willing to believe the *opposite* of what you say. You must be
real proud of yourself.


>
> Your a fuckwit Randall.

Your language use is impressive!


> An empty wessel, and empty barrel making lots of
> noise, with nothing to show for but dreams. Your a moron. A moron
Randall
> Lies !!!

Whatever you say. Of course, most people immediately translate what you
say to just the opposite (those that even bother reading your
nonsense). So thanks for the indirect compliments! I'd be a lot more
concerned if you were heaping praise on me as you do Rene and RosAsm.



>
> :))) Your so fucking stupid it gives me the belly-laughter !

Again your language usage is impressive! Yes, you'll quickly convince
people that they should trust whatever you say when you make statements
like this!


>
> :)))) Yes, master pdf, the professor who never did any teaching. Yes.
I do
> not know what a byte is. Write it down, so you wount forget it. :))))

Actually, it's the "teacher who was not a professor", just to set the
record straight (I wouldn't want you spreading any lies or propaganda
here, now).

As for writing it down, I don't have to. You wrote that down yourself
in an earlier post. If I ever need to be reminded, I can just use
Google.

>
> > If *you* want encouragement, then start
> > behaving like a normal, mature, human being.
>
> Start lying you mean?

You might try "lying low" for a while :-)
If you came back, under a different name and with a different attitude,
you might actually gain some credibility around here.

> Like you ? Start spending every single hour speaking
> lies about some imagined competition.

Do you honestly believe that I think RosAsm is some sort of
competition? HaHaHaHa! 75 users after 6-7 years of development.
Forgive me for having to pause a moment while I stop laughing.
Roasting RosAsm, Rene, and you just happens to be great, but mindless,
entertainment. Sort of like shooting fish in a barrel ('cause you're
all such easy targets). Something to offer a break in the middle of a
long day at work. If you think it's any more than that, you
overestimate yourselves.


>
> > If you expect anyone
> > around here to give you support when you behave the way you do,
you've
> > got a bit to learn about human nature. It's easy to see why you get
> > along with Rene so well, to push the bird analogy a bit farther --
> > birds of a feather flock together.
>
> Too true. Rene who knows nothing of assemebly, write ~3 megas of
(short)
> asm code,

I've seen the code, it's not that impressive.

> and produced an incredibly accurate and sofar unpairable
> effective assembler,

Accurate at what? Seems to me it crashes a lot and he spends an
inordinate amount of time defending the bugs in it around here.

(I realize that you're not a native speaker, but...)
I think that "unpairable" is the perfect word here. RosAsm doesn't work
well with anything else. Therefore, it is "unpairable". Some might
think that it's a "parody", but that's a different issue altogether.



> both for writing, reading and compile times.

Most people don't share your love of the RosAsm syntax. And I'm not
talking about HLA users, either. I'm talking about most people in this
group. But we're all glad you like it. I'd hate to have you promoting
my product. Given that people immediately discount everything you say
and assume the opposite, the last thing I'd want is for you to discover
HLA and start telling the world how great it is.


> And you,
> who barely managed to write a text preparser for MASM and FASM, in C,
and
> Bison, is a professor with 30 years of intimate asm knowledge. :))))
Yes,
> this seems to me perfectly logical :)))

Well, that "barely managed to write" program represents about 150,000
to 200,000 lines of code (including the HLA Standard Library), give me
a call when you get up to that point with RosAsm. BTW, I've also
written FORTRAN, PL/I, APL, SNOBOL4, Icon, Pascal, Delphi, C, C++, Ada,
6502, Z80, 32532, 680x0, and other code. I don't have a problem using
different languages, as the need requires. Personally (and this is a
fact I've stated here before), I think that using Flex and Bison were a
mistake for HLA v1.0; plain C would have been a better choice. But the
tools did the job, even if not as good as I would have liked. Of
course, the current HLA v2.0 implementation is over 90,000 lines of HLA
code, so all of your's and Rene's whining about HLA being written in a
VHLL is going to come to an end before too much longer.

>
> Randall, anyone still giving you any credit whatsoever is a puppy
> programmer, or a complete moron. As Rene sais : You bet on stupidity,
Rene
> bet on intelligency.

You've proven that one. If he bets on the likes of you, I'll take that
bet every time.

>
> And Randy, you are such a faker, that you have become literally
> &TRANSPARENT.

Whatever that means.

>
> If we had a competition between you on the one side, and Wolfgang or
Betov
> on the other side, for writing a compo for fastest code, they would
both
> kick you by several orders of magnitude. Kick you ass Randall ! Kick
you
> nuts into your perverse sick lying brain.

My, what a great demonstration of your expository skills! And so easy
to say, so hard to prove, too! What a great debater you are! My hat's
off to you (and as Hutch would say, when are you going to eat it?)

>
> I wouldnt want to have your support if you was the last living
programmer
> on the face of the earth.

So why are you asking me to be nice?

> I hate you man.

That's not what you said earlier.

> You are the stuff that makes my stucmack turn in disgust.

Wow, yet another impressive demonstration of your English skills.

> You are the essence of all the things i hate with a passion. A fake.
A
> fucking nothing. An imbesille. Only taken in with money, fame,
titles and
> beeing important, writing demented books to tell the world how great
you
> are, instead of beeing a true living breathing creative self.

A little jealous, eh?

>
> The only thing I admire about you is the incredible stamina that is
behind
> all theese illusions and propaganda spreading. If you really are
good, you
> would show so by not talking *** of another mans work, and the only
> reason I speak of yours, is because you did this first. You attack
> decency, with trying to luire people into thinking a front end for
MASM or
> FASM could every be an assembler. Fog. Fake. Plastic.

You want the attacks on RosAsm to end. Easy. Get Rene to shut up. Shut
up yourself. That's all it takes.


> HLA is a leech.

"If you really are good, you would show so by not talking *** of
another mans work,"

Remember that line?

>
> >> :))) And you know you can stick the AoA up your assembler.
> >
> > And I'm supposed to be nice to you, why?
>
> I want you to stop attacking the best assembler out there, when you
do so
> on lies and swindling.

Very simple. When you and Rene stop, so will I. Simple as that.

> You make me sick. Make valid, constructive critism.

You mean, like pointing out bugs in the code and providing the source
code that demonstrates the problem so you can easily track it down and
fix it? Sorry, that approach doesn't work.


> Supply real reprodusable bugreports.

I've provided three different programs that have crashed every version
of RosAsm I've downloaded over the past years. Others here and on the
RosAsm board have reproduced the problem. What more do you want? Should
I fix the bug for you, too?

> Be constuctive, and positive, not
> destructive.

I used to be. I used to recommend RosAsm to certain people back in the
days when it was the only assembly IDE around. This was before Rene
started his little "jihad" and a while before you showed up. You want a
return to those days? Then shut Rene up and shut up yourself. I'm
afraid it's *way* beyond the point I'd ever recommend RosAsm to anyone
again, but I would go about ignoring the product and leaving you to
your own devices if you were to return the favor.

Don't talk to me about being constructive and positive. I go for months
with you and Rene in my kill file and, on occasion, come over to Google
(as I'm doing now) to see what you guy's are up to. You guys never
stop, even when I'm not saying a thing about you or RosAsm. So don't
feed me a line about being constructive and positive until you learn to
practice that yourself.

> As long as you keep playing this act, you will be meet with a
> wall of hatered.

I'd suggest reading that back to yourself. In one sense, I'm not about
to return this so you. The simple truth is that I don't hate you guys;
I simply don't care one way or the other about you. But sometimes I do
allow myself to be entertained at your expense. And when you go off
like you're doing right now, it's pretty clear that I've "gotten your
goat" and I'm annoying you, and that makes it all worthwhile.


> Because you lie so much man ! You lie and lie and lie.

And what lie was that?

> Can you honetly mean you dont see it ? You devouring yourself with
this
> pathtic fight. RosAsm is an incredible assembler,

So you say. It's pretty telling that only you, Rene, and Wolfgang seem
to be defending RosAsm, though.


> and HLA has nothing to do in this NG.

Neither does Bush, GPL, or most of the other topics that get discussed
here. Still, how many *RosAsm* questions get asked around here? A
recent scan suggests that the only RosAsm questions that get asked in
this newsgroup are "why does RosAsm crash?"


> HLA is a HLL. A really suck HLL.

HLA is a high level assembler. And yes, it sucks as a HLL, because it
is an assembly language, not a high-level language.




>
> And you yourself ? For the time beeing :
>
> You're a phony !

Maybe. But there are a lot more people who believe this "phony" than
believe you. You must really hate that.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde

.