Re: Rene's Revised History of Assembly Language

randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx écrivait
news:1117557825.821885.10020@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

> Time *has* told us. It's been seven years since you started RosAsm (by
> your own claims). You've got 80 members on the RosAsm support board.
> If this assembler was *really* going to set the world on fire, don't
> you think you'd have a few more users by now?
>
> First, it was going to be ReactOS that made it all possible. Two years
> ago you were claiming the "assembly rebirth" would start in two years.
> Well, two years have passed. ReactOS isn't ready and RosAsm sure isn't
> setting the world on fire. Then, the disassembler was going to kick
> off the assembly rebirth. Well, after two years of releases, we don't
> see too much of that, do we (and I've found posts a year or more ago
> where you claimed in just a few short weeks the disassembly would be
> ready; what happened?) Next, I'd imagine it's the "wizards" that are
> going to make the assembly rebirth happen. What will your excuse for
> RosAsm's failure be after that?

Thanks for taking care of RosAsm success. :))

The number of RosAsm users is what it is normal to be,
in the actual conditions, and i do not need any "excuse
for RosAsm's failure", as long as there is no failure,
and as long as the real success is with the productivity
of the RosAsm users, and nothing else.


>> For now, all time says is that the HLA victims do not
>> write anything significative and that the RosAsm users
>> are productive.
>
> Sure. Thousands of beginners are learning assembly using HLA.

Nobody can learn Assembly with an HLL Pre-Parser. The
guys who want to learn Assembly must use an Assembler.


> Tens of
> RosAsm users are being productive. Now granted, many (indeed most) of
> the current crop of HLA users will finish their assembly language
> programming classes and never touch assembly language again (and that
> fact would be true no matter what assembler they've used -- I've
> taught the courses with several assemblers over the years, so I have a
> little bit of experience in this area). But if only 2% of those
> students stick with it, that means that we'll get about one or two
> students per course, per school, going on to become more experienced
> HLA programmers. As their programming experience grows, so will the
> sophistication of the apps that they produce. HLA's use in schools is
> still very new (about a year in most cases, because that's when
> AoA/32bits was published). Given that the assembly course is generally
> taken during the first or second year, that means that it will still
> be a couple of years before those students gain sufficient programming
> knowledge and experience to write complex applications in *any*
> language, much less assembly. But in the mean time, we're probably
> seeing about 1-2 students per course, per term, per school, who will
> go on to do more work in assembly. The growth curve is slow, but the
> advanced user base *is* growing. I doubt you'll ever see a "floodgate"
> opening up, with tons of HLA applications appearing all at once, but
> the number of apps will continue to increase.

Everybody knows that you are, actually, the individual
who creates the most damages to Assembly. Congratulations.


> Ultimately, though, providing an application development tool is not
> HLA's prime purpose. As is obvious to *anyone*, most applications are
> not written in assembly language and as is obvious to anyone but you,
> that fact is *not* going to change, ever. Creating a tool for
> creating stand-alone applications in assembly limits your product to
> the 0.0001% of the programming population who does that. The *vast*
> majority of the time that assembly is actually used, it's used as a
> companion to a HLL. And this is RosAsm's biggest failing -- it doesn't
> conveniently allow such usage. And this is HLA's greatest advantage--
> having a syntax that is similar to HLLs, it is very convenient for HLL
> programmers to use HLA. Make all the snide remarks you like about this
> fact, but the fact remains that the RosAsm approach is doomed to
> failure. Heck, it's not doomed, it *has* failed. I mean, after 7 years
> you've attracted 80 users to your board. If your ideas were so good,
> I'd have expected a better response than this.

Yes, we all know that you are strongly opposed to the
Assembly Rebirth. Nothing new.


> If you think that having 80 users is not that bad, after seven years,
> more power to you. Does the term "insignificant" have any meaning to
> you?

Well, first the number of registred users, at the Board,
is not the number of real users. 1) Many of the registred
ones are no more there, 2) many of the real users are
not registred. For example, i know of a complete group
of professional Programmers, in France, who use RosAsm,
and who never posted anything.

Second, the number of users has no importance, for now.
It is quite normal that an Assembler that can be used
for nothing but writing Applications has a very small
number of user, in the actual context of Mythology.
And, mind you, such a Mythology cannot be fought by
fighthing against individuals like you, neither with
saying to any HLL user, that Assembly is way easier
than HLL.

When facing Propaganda and Mythology, this is no use
to fight. The ony way is when having the HLL users taking
a look at the Tool, and at what it really does. But, if
i ask them to take a look... they _NEVER_ will. So that
the only way is with proposing a Tool set that has no
competitor in the HLL area, and this is what i am doing.

:)

Betov.

< http://rosasm.org >




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "We Never Use Assembly Language"
    ... Use an array incorrectly in RosAsm, ... And that's one of the reasons HLL programming is generally more ... same applies to assembler speed. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: "We Never Use Assembly Language"
    ... Use an array incorrectly in RosAsm, ... instead of the game programming:-p ... doesn't even have the competence to implement a decent undo feature. ... productivity of the RosAsm assembler. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: A (mild-mannered) defense of RosAsm
    ... >> encourages people to write HLL, while claiming to be pushing assembler. ... > AS he says he is teaching people that may have had a HLL programming ... Just don't whine about how great RosAsm is. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Wannabe sure wants to be
    ... the assembler can't handle the source file. ... > was given by Guga back then that this was a very low priority bug. ... And RosAsm shouldn't handle this, ... > the absolute best programming environment available for win32. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: A (mild-mannered) defense of RosAsm (#2)
    ... John Dahlman wrote: ... > Just a reminder, RosAsm: ... This isn't particularly remarkable for an assembler; NASM has them all ...
    (alt.lang.asm)