Re: High Level Assembly (HLA)

randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx écrivait
news:1117482409.876237.217690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:


Well, i should not answer to this flow of insanities,
but, maybe it would be possible that some readers
could believe them. So... here we go...

:(


> We have never seen a "preparser" outside of RosAsm, either.

One more inovation of RosAsm, that you will probably
never understand.


>> [...] Where are your HLA victims Applications?
>
> Who cares? Wisely, they are shielding them from you because you'd just
> attack them personally, as you have Sevag and Paul. Though it is
> amusing that you *still* use this line after complaining that people
> are posting discussions of their HLA applications on this very board.

In other words... nothing to show. OK. :)


>> RosAsm users' ones are (very partialy) there:
>
> Who cares? That has nothing to do with whether or not RosAsm is or
> isn't an assembler. The fact that you've collected a few user demos on
> your web page is hardly what defines what is and is not an assembler.

Sure, but there is no question about RosAsm being or
not being an Assembler. Everybody knows that RosAsm
is an Assembler, full right, and this has never been
a question.

As opposed HLA is evidently not an Assembler, at all,
as it does not even include an Encoder, and as it does
not conform to any possible definition of what any
Assembler could ever be.


> As for the fact that RosAsm's demos may be more advanced than some
> user-written HLA demos, that's pretty much a given at this point. The
> HLA user base is built up of beginning programmers. It will take time
> before the larger user base increases to the point where you find a
> large number of HLA apps as you would, say, MASM apps (the RosAsm base
> is so pathetically small, I'm certainly not setting my goals to
> achieve that level).

:))

OK:

1) This is normal that the HLA victims have nothing to
show, because they are all beginners.

2) This is normal that the RosAsm users have something
to show because they were all experts before using RosAsm.
(What means that RosAsm does not have any beginner user).

Fancy... :)


>> > [...]And the problem with that? Are you saying that people
>> > aren't writing RosAsm demos to promote RosAsm? Have you
>> > looked at Wannabee's stuff lately?
>>
>> No. There was none, as Half does not have a Web connexion
>> actually.
>
> I guess Guga doesn't either. How's the disassembler coming along?
> Can't make any progress on it on your own?

Yes, I have already answered to this. You will see the
next coming release, with significative improvements,
in the next week, probably.

[By the way, not to minimize Guga contribution -that
is quite massive on many areas...-, Guga never wrote
_one_ single line of the Disassembler, that is 100%
my own work. Though this may change in the future,
for the final HLL interpretations... :)]


>> So said, "Wannabee's stuff" really diserves, at least, to
>> be noticed, as this is some real impressive work.
>
> Yes, we were *all* impressed by his last set of claims about how he
> rewrote the Delphi VCL. They were about as amusing as your claims that
> you'd created a totally custom edit tool for RosAsm.

If "Half claims" were "as amusing as", i suppose he
was 100% right, as long as it would require really
having a very damaged brain, to assert that RosAsm
Sources Editor is not "a totally custom edit tool
for RosAsm".

Anybody taking a quick look, simply, to the way the
Sources Editor works, can see immidiatly that it is,
in no way, an Edit Control, and anybody taking a quick
look to the Source of the Sources Editor can see that,
effectively, it is a 100% original Editor making use
of nothing but the "TextOutA" Function, with many
unusual Functionalities.

Saying that i don't know what RosAsm Sources Editor
is, and how i wrote it, shows nothing but your vileny
and your definitive stupidity.


> While Wannabee is busy hacking out incomplete demos that aren't very
> robust, you're seeing HLA users crank out IDEs (and porting them to
> Windows *and* Linux) and other stuff.

:)) :)) :))

Well... you know, when Half will have finished his
Icon Editor (w<e should have a new release soon...),
everybody will be able to measure the exact value of
your words.

:)) :)) :))


>> > Yes, writing applications in assembly language "damages" assembly.
>>
>> No. It does not. What does damage Assembly is when writing
>> Applications with a weird HLL and saying that it is Assembly.
>
> You mean, like RosAsm? Whether you claim HLL-like control structures
> are macros or not in RosAsm, the bottom line is that you use a
> HLL-like programming style in RosAsm. The fact that you call those HLL
> statements "macros" doesn't change one thing. The fact that those
> macros are built into MASM, TASM, and HLA doesn't mean a single thing
> to your average assembly language programmer. What they see is that
> you use HLL-like control structures in your code and then complain
> about their presence in other assemblers. Doesn't make much sense to
> most people (then again, neither do most of your posts). When you give
> up the HLL-like programming style in your RosAsm code, you'll have a
> leg to stand on when you make this complaint. Until then, it's all
> syntactical nit-picking with absolutely zero differentiation between
> the products (other than the fact that MASM, TASM, and HLA do a much
> better job of what you're trying to do with your macros).

Just for the ones reading those bullshits:

Writing an HLL Pre-Parser enabling HLL Statements is
way easier to write, than writing the Macros Parser
that can enable the Programmer with defining his own
HLL Style.

That is, by the way, one of the major differences
between a Compiler and an Assembler, that this swindler
could never admit, as long as he is utterly unable to
write anything but an HLL pre-parser.


Betov.

< http://rosasm.org >




.

Quantcast