Rene is claiming, again, that he wrote a custom edit tool for RosAsm



Betov wrote:
> 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...
>

And you really expect people to believe you? Let me clue you in, Rene,
you have zero credibility. It comes from spending five years around
here spouting nonsense. Feel free to take your credibility level into
the negative regions, though.



> > We have never seen a "preparser" outside of RosAsm, either.
>
> One more inovation of RosAsm, that you will probably
> never understand.

IOW, a preparser is bad in HLA, it's an innovation in RosAsm.
I love it!

>
> >> 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.

No, by your own definition RosAsm fails to be an assembler. That point
has been made around here many times. It's not a question of whether
RosAsm is or isn't an assembler, though. What is in question is your
lame definitions, which you attempt to use to claim that MASM and HLA
are not assemblers. The problem with your definitions is that, when
applied to RosAsm, they demonstrate that RosAsm isn't an assembler,
either.

You know, few people (other than the RosAsm crowd) question that MASM
is an assembler. You do. That fact alone gives you zero credibility
when it comes to defining what is and what is not an assembler.

>
> 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.

It most certainly does include an encoder. Under Windows, it's called
ml.exe or fasm.exe. Under Linux, it's called as. The fact that it is a
separate process is irrelvant.


>
>
> > 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.

Yes, that is the market for whom HLA was created. Most HLA users are
solving homework problems and the like with HLA. Not exactly the stuff
you post on web pages (for obvious plagiarism purposes).

>
> 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).

Again, you are quite correct. Very few beginners could learn with
RosAsm because of the lack of appropriate pedagogy (and the prime
example of a beginner, Wannabee, is quite scary). I'd bet that the
largest percentage of RosAsm users already knew assembly upon
encountering RosAsm and, for whatever reason, were willing to learn a
different syntax (perhaps to use the IDE, back in the days when Spasm
was the only game in town) in order to use RosAsm. It's not surprising,
therefore, that *some* more advanced demos have come from the RosAsm
crowd. Then again, now that we have IDEs for the likes of NASM, FASM,
MASM, and HLA, the advantage you once held in that area no longer
exist.

Compare yourself with the number of demos written by advanced users of
*other* assemblers (NASM, FASM, MASM, and even Gas). You've got a
pathetically small number by comparison.




> Fancy... :)

Nothing fancy about it at all. RosAsm has a tiny number of demos
available, compared to MASM, NASM, FASM, etc. Comparing yourself
against a teaching tool, for whom most users will complete the assembly
course and then simply use assembly in support of their HLL code may
make you feel better, but it doesn't change the fact that *you* don't
have a whole lot of people using your product.

HLA *has* reached critical mass. There are lots of people using it and
the experience of the user base is increasing. No doubt, within a year
or two, the number of user demos and applications written in HLA will
surpass that of RosAsm. You've got an advantage right now insofar as
HLA's user base has been inexperienced. But that advantage is fading
fast, just like all the other advantages RosAsm has held in the past
(such as being the first with an IDE).

Not that having more "user demos" has really been much of an advantage
to begin with. What does it prove? Absolutely nothing. Again, if you
had the same number of apps as MASM, I'd be impressed. Trying to
impress us with the tiny number of apps that you've got simply
demonstrates how *small* you think.

> >
> > 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.

I'd say I'm looking forward to it :-). But the truth is, you keep
making the pronouncements about how great the disassembler is, and
every time I've played with it, I've broken it within a minute or two.
Though it has been a long time since I've played with it, I'm not
expecting much.


>
> [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... :)]

Yet, you've claimed in the past that work was being held up while Guga
was busy moving. Perhaps you can explain those posts?

> > 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".

Shall we ask Donkey to step in and point out how your code is just a
subclass of the Win32 tool again? You do realize, of course, that by
making RosAsm GPL and posting the source code, it's pretty easy for
people to verify what you've done with respect to your EDIT tool? Make
all the proclamations you want about your "totally custom edit tool",
but anyone who looks at your source code can easily determine that
you've simply subclassed the Win32 tool. In most people's minds, that
not a "totally custom edit tool".


>
> 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.

Yes, I do believe that Donkey did this, and verified that you are
simply subclassing the existing tool. Hardly a "totally custom edit
tool".


>
> 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.

I will certainly admit that *I* haven't wasted the time figuring out
what you've done. But I have a fair amount of respect for Edgar
(Donkey) and he made a very pervasive arguement in this very newsgroup
that pretty much debunked your claims that you wrote a "totally custom
edit tool". Perhaps you simply don't understand the meaning of the
phrase "totally custom edit tool"?


>
> Well... you know, when Half will have finished his
> Icon Editor (w<e should have a new release soon...),

Wait, wait, wait. I thought he wrote this in 12 days, or something like
that? You mean, it's not finished? Boy, it's been a couple of months
now. You know, this "demo" is looking less impressive with each passing
day.

> everybody will be able to measure the exact value of
> your words.

Yes, they will.


> >> 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.

HaHaHaHaHa!
So why don't you prove how easy this is by writing such a "preparser"
for RosAsm then? Given how broken your macro system is, such a
"preparser" would be a boon to RosAsm users.

BTW, have you forgotten that HLA *also* includes a powerful macro
system that is *far* more capable of implementing those HLL-like
statements than is RosAsm? Indeed, I've provided sample macro
implementations for *every one* of the HLA high-level control
structures. So if macro implementation is really a good indication of
the power of the assembler, HLA still wins hands down, because the
macro implementation of those statements in HLA is *far* better than
that in RosAsm (none of the funky "." nonsense, fully recursive, full
boolean expressions, nestable to any level, etc., etc., etc.).

>
> That is, by the way, one of the major differences
> between a Compiler and an Assembler,

Actually, there is an element of truth to this. Which is one of the
reasons I refer to HLA as a "compiler for an assembly language."

On the other hand, your argument that having the macros built into the
language puts you on weak ground. After all, RosAsm is the assembler
that builds all the Win32 equates into the assembler (rather than
including them as part of the user's source code as all other
assemblers do). So I'd be careful about your claims of what an
assembler is and isn't. As usual, they can be easily turned against
you.


> that this swindler
> could never admit, as long as he is utterly unable to
> write anything but an HLL pre-parser.

Whatever you say. Bottom line though, is that I've written a lot more
code than you ever have, both in assembly and in HLLs.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde

.

Quantcast