Re: US Military Dead during Iraq War

Frank Kotler <fbkotler@xxxxxxxxxxx> écrivait news:wfidnW92C7CwrI3eRVn-
gw@xxxxxxxxxxx:

> ¬a\/b wrote:
>
>> global _start
>>
>> section .text
>> _start:
>> a=4; b=1; c=msg; r=msglen; int 80h
>> a=1; b^=b; int 80h
>>
>> section .data
>> msg db 'You want it dense?',10
>> msglen equ msg-$
>>
>> Where a=eax, b=ebx, c=ecx, r=edx, i=esi, j=edi, k=ebp, s=esp
>> ax,al,ah etc rx,rh,rj ix jx kp=kx sx
>
>> Where is the problem?
>
> Just above :)
>
> Like Herbert's "made up language", the only "problem" is that no one
> else speaks it. You're talking to yourselves.


This is a very stupid answer, Frank.

Personally, i think that Equating the Registers is bad.

Nevertheless, he is fully right, when "sentencing" the
Statements, and this is a very trivial point to show
why:

>> a=4; b=1; c=msg; r=msglen; int 80h

_IS_ a real Sentence. Would it be some HLL, it would say
something like:

OsFunction Whatever, Whatever, MessagePointer, MessageLength

... which is really a _Sentence_, making _sense_, which is
the exact reason why there is no reason to split it in the
absurd way we are used to, in traditional Assembly.

The same way we are used to divide an Application Source
into Modules, Procedures, Routines, or whatever... that
is to say... to _group_ some Parts,... the individual
Instructions, at the Assembly level, _do_ have some
natural tendency to produce "Sentences", and there is
absolutely no reason for killing this "grouping", of the
sentence level. It would be as absurd as killing the
other upward grouping levels that introduce organizations
in a Source, for Routines, Procedures, Modules or whatever.

The fact that some traditional Assemblers still keep with
one Instruction per line, shows nothing but one evident
fact, that is that these Assemblers have never been thought
for producing real life Applications. As simple as this.

Not considering the evident advantages of having a more
dense Source, at a readability point of view, the traditional,
one Instruction per line way, introduces "flatness" of the
Source flow, that is... make it way less readable, than
organized sentences: The human brain is not featured for
perceiving flat identical flows of things. We are tailored
to perceive _differences_. Therefore, a flat linear, one
instruction per line Source is, by definition way less
readable.


Betov.

< http://rosasm.org >









.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: primitives vs cleverness vs readability
    ... There's no reason at all to use 64-bit threading on a 64-bit ... this isn't something gcc maintainers have any control over. ... The claim was that ITC doubles size from 32-bit to 64-bit processors. ... Maybe a simple jump indirect instruction is used, ...
    (comp.lang.forth)
  • Re: Holiday Game
    ... think an explicit division instruction enhances the readability -- ... If you want readability, use a HLL (and then you also get speed ... Are you trying to say that a C compiler makes a good assembler? ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Openssl compilation and gcc options
    ... >> any reason it would be faster, and I can think of reasons it would be ... Neither instruction set is more native than the other. ... There is the possibility of using "denser" CPU instructions (that do ... So a tight loop with 32bit pointers may fit ...
    (comp.security.ssh)
  • Re: JES2 Exit6 - Changing Class= Based on PGM=
    ... For me, the primary reason for coding CLC =C'IOLQ',3is that the ... This instruction will compare (correctly, ... presume) four bytes of data because the first operand is four bytes long. ... a good reason for redundantly carrying the same value in two places. ...
    (bit.listserv.ibm-main)
  • Re: Holiday Game
    ... to get some readable code? ... Does HLA now support optimization or do you really use the div instruction to ... Isn't that enough to convince you that readability is more important ...
    (alt.lang.asm)