Re: Need reviews of HLA Adventure



Betov wrote:
>
> Liar.
>
> HLA never targetted "Beginners". You wrote it, first,
> with the hope to compete with real Assemblers.

So you were there at the meeting I had with my department chair when I
discussed what could be done to help better teach assembly language
programmers? Interesting that you don't have a clue what you're talking
about, and you have the nerve to call me a liar :-)

In one respect, you are quite right. I wrote HLA to compete with *real*
assemblers. Those assemblers being MASM and TASM. Using MASM in the
classroom and in the laboratory was creating some real problems. HLA
was designed to be a *far* better tool for this purpose.

> Then, as
> no existing Asmer, on earth, would have ever considered
> the possibility of using that ***,

Certainly, I was under the misguided impression that existing
programmers would recognize how much more powerful HLA was than MASM
was (and still is) and I figured they would consider this and switch to
HLA. I was wrong for some very obvious reasons:

1. Most assembly programmers don't even begin to use the power that
MASM provides and, therefore, don't really need the extra power that
HLA has.

2. Those who *have* mastered MASM's power have put so much time and
effort into mastering the product that they're not about to abandon it
for a different assembler, and start the learning curve all over again.

It took me about three weeks after the release of HLA v1.0 in Sept,
1999, to realize this. Actually, it took about three weeks after the
release of HLA v1.1 in early Oct 1999 to realize this, as HLA v1.0 was
released only to the students at UCR and HLA's first general release
was v1.1. Now if you want to accuse me of lying about the date, feel
free to check out the following post to CLAX:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.asm.x86/browse_frm/thread/70b3f0b07460413f/c1b9cc53d6d85923?q=HLA+v1.1&rnum=1#c1b9cc53d6d85923


> you said to yourself:
>
> "I cannot reach Programmers >>>>>>>>> Let me pervert the
> beginners".
>
> Now, you also claim (liar second shot) that you started
> HLA at the same time i started RosAsm.

No, I made no such claims. I claimed that I started HLA in 1996
(shortly after the aforementioned discussion with my department chair).
Though I didn't post anything to the newsgroups announcing "Hey, I'm
going to start writing a new assembler", it's fairly easy to verify all
this by considering the dates of the last work done on the UCR Standard
Library (which I abandoned when I started to work on HLA) and the end
of the updates to AoA/16-bits). And given that the original HLA system
was on the order of 100,000 lines of code (without even considering the
HLA Standard Library, another 30-50,000 lines of code), logistically
it's not unreasonable to expect that work on the HLA system began
*long* before the Sept/Oct release dates for v1.0/v1.1.

So make all the claims you want about how I'm lying about what date I
started the project on; the facts do not support your claims.

I *did* claim that the products were released about the same time. I
make this claim because I remember you mentioning SpAsm in the early
part of 2000 (several months after I released HLA v1.1). Assuming you
started SpAsm in 1998, as you claim (and I'm not questioning this), two
years is probably a reasonable period of time before the first version
appeared, eh?


> If so, you cannot
> come out of the box and claim now that RosAsm beats your
> *** on the productivity side, because RosAsm is older.

I did not claim RosAsm is older. I claimed that RosAsm (well, SpAsm)
and HLA appeared at about the same time. Do you have proof (say,
product release announcements) that SpAsm was introduced significantly
*before* Oct 1999? Or significantly after?


>
> Liar. Swindler. Vile individual.

Whatever you say. You're the one claiming all the historical "facts"
about HLA without any ability to back up your claims. All I said was
that HLA and SpAsm appeared on the scene at roughly the same time. Care
to prove that SpAsm was released significantly before or after HLA?
("significant" in this case would be more than a year before or after).
Cheers,
Randy Hyde

.

Quantcast