Randall is just talking out his arse again...
- From: The_Sage <The_Sage@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 11:39:03 -0700
>Reply to article by: "Randall Hyde" <randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date written: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 03:10:20 GMT
>MsgID:<wWCFe.8781$dU3.2849@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>I guess you are fairly new to A.L.A. Anyone who has been around here for a
>while knows that "The_Stooge" is a total troll and makes stuff up just to
>get people going. It's fun to poke holes in his comments now and then, but
>no one believes a single word he has to say. Even "uncritical readers"
>automatically assume the opposite of anything he says.
If it is so obvious, why would such a "critical reader" like you have to state
the blatently obvious? There is never any intelligent reason to call someone
names, so what's your excuse for such immature behavior? If trolling is such a
bad thing for this newsgroup, why would you continually respond to a supposedly
known troll, even if in jest?
Oh I know, you were "only having fun"! Clearly you are trying to disclaim your
poorly thought out arguments to me, so that when or if people see the blunders
in your replies, they will think that you were "only joking and not being
serious" about your replies. Haha! You don't lie very well Randall, your lies
are comletely childish and transparent.
Anyone that has raised children can see the possible reason you would have for
calling me names and that would be if I had posted something that you *HAD* to
respond to, and then I pissed you off because I made you look so stupid and
incompetent in your inability to refute that post, so the only thing left for
you to do is get even by calling me names. Seeing as you have such a problem
with being a programming bully, let's see you poke holes in this...
Randall claimed in regards to memory segmentation issues that, "You know what?
I've programmed Motorola 6805, 6809, 6811, 680x0, and PPC assembly languages. I
don't *ever* remember using segmented addressing on *any* of these processors.
Indeed, I seem to recall people bragging about how the 68K had a flat address
space and didn't use that 'horrible' segmented addressing scheme found on the
Intel chips". Unfortunately for Randall, the reality of memory segmentation
issues (not just addressing) is, "Because the 128-KB Macintosh used a 68000
processor, the offset values of these instructions were limited to 15 bits in
size" (http://www.byte.com/art/9404/sec8/art4.htm). Segmentation merely implies
that you have X amount of memory that you cannot use contigously, but must use
in fractional sizes, ie -- in small segments of memory instead of the whole
memory. Processor instructions that are limited to 15-bit offsets in a 16-bit
memory space fit that defintion *PERFECTLY*. There goes Randall's credibility
that he ever programmed anything for Motorola...or maybe even any processor
other than the Intel for that matter.
How about Randall's continual goof in confusing an assembler with a compiler?
Maybe the problem is Randall can't even tell the difference between assembly
language and a high level language (HLL)? Even newbies (unless they are students
of Randall) know that assembly language is "a symbolic representation of the
machine code of a specific processor" and a high level language is "a
programming language which provides some level of abstraction above assembly
language". Clearly the two terms, assembly and HLL, are mutually exclusive. What
this also means is that an assembler would logically be a program that converts
assembly language into machine code and a complier would convert HLL to machine
code. So where does Randall come up with his idea of an HLA or "High Level
Assembler"? From his arse. There is no such thing as an HLA and there never will
be...at least not outside of Randall's poorly thought out imagination.
What about function points? You know, that thing you keep confusing with line
counts? Remember how function points clearly demonstrate how ineffective
assembly is as compared to your typical HLL or HLA? Remember the chart comparing
the "superiority" of AMS over even just FORTRAN, something you claimed just the
opposite? Here is it again...
Activity Case A Case B Difference
Assembler Fortran
(10,000 Lines) (3,000 Lines)
Requirement 2 Months 2 Months 0
Design 3 Months 3 Months 0
Coding 10 Months 3 Months -7
Integration/Test 5 Months 3 Months -2
User Documentation 2 Months 2 Months 0
Management/Support 3 Months 2 Months -1
Total 25 Months 15 Months -10
Total Costs $125,000 $75,000 ($50,000)
Cost/Src Line $12.50 $25.00 $12.50
Lines/Person/Month 400 200 -200
Cost Per FP $4,166.67 $2,500.00 ($1,666.67)
FP/Person/Month 1.2 2 +0.8
If you want to write an average of 1 line of ASM for every 2 lines you could
write in FORTRAN, if you want to write 1.2 functions in ASM for every 2
functions you could write in FORTRAN, if you would rather run a business where
you lose $.67 for every line of code you write as compared to FORTRAN, and if
you would rather spend 1.67 days writing the same amount of final code you could
have written in FORTRAN in 1.0 days, then be my guest, but while you will still
be writing and debugging your program, I will be done with mine and almost
finished with a second project. Yeah, you are really at the forefront of
technology with your claims of the superiority of ASM.
I would like to see you "poke holes" in these serious issues again (I could use
the laugh) but I doubt if you ever will (you never have been able to before).
But maybe if I stoop to your level of "reasoning" you would at least attempt to
try it, you know, things like playing games with your name like calling you
"SpamDoll" instead of Randall or "Jekyll and Hyde" instead of Hyde and then
pretending that I only wrote this post "in jest" just so I could "humor you".
But no, that would be too immature and childishly transparent and, unlike you, I
don't want my actions and behaviors to be determined by what others do or say,
but by what I know is the proper thing to do.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Toward no crimes have men shown themselves so cold-bloodedly
cruel as in punishing differences in belief"
-- James Russell Lowell
=============================================================
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Randall is just talking out his arse again...
- From: ¬a\\/b
- Re: Randall is just talking out his arse again...
- From: randyhyde
- Re: Randall is just talking out his arse again...
- Prev by Date: Re: Alignment
- Next by Date: Re: Assembly Jobs do Exist
- Previous by thread: debugging amd64 (gdb)
- Next by thread: Re: Randall is just talking out his arse again...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
