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

randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx écrivait news:1117494642.214798.40780
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:


>> > 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!

No:

RosAsm _HAS_ a possibility of including Pre-Parsers.
It actually has six, including one HLL Pre-Parser.

HLA _IS_ an HLL Pre-Parser, not even including an
Encoder.


> [... BlaBla... BlaBla... BlaBla...]
>
>> 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"?

Feel free to discredit yourself to death by trying to make
the demonstration that RosAsm Source Editor is based on an
Edit Control.

:)

Betov.

< http:;//rosasm.org >





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Rene is claiming, again, that he wrote a custom edit tool for RosAsm
    ... >> IOW, a preparser is bad in HLA, it's an innovation in RosAsm. ... Sounds to me like it is not just *a* preparser, ... The fact that you did not create a totally custom edit ... "totally custom edit tool" hold about as much water as Wannabee's ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Randy vs. Betov: from an outsider
    ... However, as the other free Win32 assembly level debuggers I know of are both very good products I have no problem if RosAsm debugger is the worst among these. ... you just have a barren assembler that's ... -, RosAsm Sources Editor is a unique example of real Sources Editor, in the Assembly area. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Question for RosAsm users
    ... representing the equivalency of an Assembler, a Debugger, ... a Disassembler, a Sources Editor, several Resources ... I have never seen any programmer tool even close to the friendlyness of RosAsm. ... And then with that label underlined, one press a key and RosAsm jumps to implementation? ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: RosAsm Documentation Absurdity
    ... A Sources Editor is not a Text Editor. ... Which make all source editors (RosAsm included) a text editors. ... So your saying that with their previous HLL they were slower to write ...
    (alt.lang.asm)