Re: a challenge
- From: "¬a\\/b" <al@xxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:14:22 +0100
On 10 Jan 2006 19:39:46 GMT, Betov <betov@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>"¬a\\/b" <al@xxx> écrivait news:p508s19mea9gnlnf0bjgp09o26gg7d1nvv@xxxxxxx:
[...]
>As i wrote above, the time envolved with writing a program
>depend on a lot of things:
>
>>>L0:
>>>* The "ideas" Time.
>>>* The Documentation Time.
>>>* The typing time.
>>>* The reading time.
>>>* The testing Time.
>>>* The debugging Time
>>>* Re-organizition time | Loop L0<
>
>Keeping with your example, take a guy who does not recall
>how to write Roman Numbers, and he will, first, spend a
>significative time, to recall of this.
at start i didn't remember how to write Roman Numbers too
i choose one i presumed good way to write that in the hope it was
right
>So said, even though i did not at all focuse on the problem,
>10 hours would seem to me extreemely long... but this is not
>really the topic...
the problems are for catch *every errors* in the input string
there are of many type
>As you can see, nobody, in here, will probably ever tell
>you that your Syntax is interresting, and nobody, but you,
>will much probably use it.
>About the "short typing", you can go on writing things
>like "cl==10 #.l2", if you like, but i am afraid the you
>will never convince anybody that this has any advantage
>on the _way_ more readable
>
>"On cl = 10, jmp .12"
>
>Or, even clearer:
>
>If cl = 10
> jmp .12
>End_If
these could be more readable for who don't know a powerful
assembly language
>... that, given the habits, need no learning effort.
>
>Also, it may seem to you "shorter" to write things like:
>
>i-=k; j+=i; --a;
>
>But, mind you, this will remain as unreadable as any
>C cryptic thingie, that almost no Asmer will even read.
i can read them
>(For your information, i have no idea of what this could
>ever mean, and i have no reason for making any additinal
>effort).
seems to me in a traslation:
sub esi, ebp
add edi, esi
dec eax
>But, one thing, i am 100% sure about, is that
>symbols like "i", "j" and "k" should never be used in
>any form of Assembly, unless it would be some kind of
>Basic "For / Next" emulation... maybe...
>
>Symbols _must_ have fully self-descriptive names,
for me "k", "a", "i", "j" are "self-descriptive names" too
>built
>in a way that, any beginner, reading a Source for the
>very first time in his life, could immidiately and fully
>understand what it is about. That is, even if this is for
>"meaningless" Variables, the name is "Dummy_Variable_1",
>and, evidently, never "i".
ok
>Feel, as you say, "free", of writing the way you like,
>with your private language, but the only guaranted
>effect, you will ever get, will be to make your Sources
>unreadable to others, instead of convincing anybody
>that your Syntax is better. Worse than this: Would
>your Syntax be effectively better, like Herbert's one,
>that is evidently, at least "more logical", nobody would
>ever take any care of this: This is not the problem, at
>all.
i know i'm right in this;
>Betov.
>
>< http://rosasm.org >
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: a challenge
- From: Spam Killer
- Re: a challenge
- From: Betov
- Re: a challenge
- References:
- a challenge
- From: ¬a\\/b
- Re: a challenge
- From: Betov
- Re: a challenge
- From: ¬a\\/b
- Re: a challenge
- From: Betov
- Re: a challenge
- From: ¬a\\/b
- Re: a challenge
- From: Betov
- a challenge
- Prev by Date: Re: Eorros for me, in the assembly history
- Next by Date: Re: Wheels falling off CLAX again ?
- Previous by thread: Re: a challenge
- Next by thread: Re: a challenge
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
