Rene's Revised History of Assembly Language



Betov wrote:
>
> Oh, you don't need to explain the reson why. Everything
> is 100% clear: No Asmer on earth would have ever used
> your packet of ***, and so forth you choosed to deliberatly
> misslead the beginners as they are supposed to be way easier
> victims. Simple.

And how many are using RosAsm?
At least HLA *has* some users :-) (indeed, the HLA user base is exactly
the target audience it was created for; as yet, I don't see all the HLL
programmers running to use RosAsm [HLL users being the audience you've
claimed to target]).

>
> You can twist the facts the way you like to try to match
> with your swindling, but you are going to have some hard
> time with all of this. You have to choose:
>
> Either you started your pathetic HLL Pre-Parser ages ago,

The starting date for HLA has been published on Webster and posted here
many times. It was sometime in 1996 (probably about mid-year, I don't
recall the exact month).

> and then, given the state of the Tool, you are utterly
> incompetent (all of the Actual Assemblers Authors wrote
> their REAL ASSEMBLER in 2 years or so -way less for
> Jeremy...-), or you started recently.

Well, HLA has been out since Sept 1999. You've been around for most of
that time and I certainly recall a post of your's in April 2000
mentioning HLA. So either you've gone senile, in which case you have no
business trying to make claims about the history of assembly language,
or you're back in your propaganda "revisionist history" mode. I'd bet
on the latter, though the former wouldn't surprise me.

>
> Either your Lines numbers are one of your usual swidling
> or you do not know how to write, at all, because "100,000
> lines of code" for an HLL Pre-Parser is simply ridiculous.

Of course when you add true records/structs, unions, classes, *very*
powerful macro facilities, built-in support for HLL-like control
structures, automatic parameter passing using pass by value, reference,
result, value/result, name, and evaluation, a full compile-time
language, context-free macro facilities, and type checking, you can
come back to me and talk about how many lines of code this should take.

There is no question that I could have produced "yet another
hobby-quality assembler" in a couple of years. I chose, instead, to add
a feature set that exceeded that found in the commercial assemblers of
that era (specifically MASM v6 and TASM v5). None of the other
assemblers you've referred to have reached that level, even after all
these years.

Now, if you want to thrown around line number counts and discuss
incompetence, how come RosAsm has something like 70,000 lines of code
after all these years and you still don't support static linking,
something most of those other assemblers provided from day one?
Cheers,
Randy Hyde

.

Quantcast