Re: "We Never Use Assembly Language"

o//annabee wrote:
På Mon, 13 Mar 2006 04:47:37 +0100, skrev sevagK <kahlinor@xxxxxxxxx>:


o//annabee wrote:

I can already write assembly code to do what I want, Wannabee. It's
too bad that I expect the same from macros that I use.

Then, you need to use a HLL. It mean "High level". It means that the asm
side of things is left in the hands of others. Then its no longer
assebly
programming.

Funny you should mention that, since Rosasm is written with a heavy use
of macros. I guess Rosasm is no longer written in assembly.

Do you fail to understand the words as written? Do I have to explain it to
you like talking to a child? Do you not see the passages, the several
replies in connection?

Looks like you have to keep explaning things Wannabee, because you are
excusing that fact that Rosasm has weak macros by claiming that more
powerful macros are not-assembly (you've joined Rene's mindset here...
anything Rosasm can't do isn't assembly anymore). I agree with half of
that. Rosasm has a weak macro processor, but having powerful macros
does not detract from a tool being an assembler.

You want "powerful" macros. You want macros - not following - but
_defeating_ the rules of assembly. Thats ok. But that is not assembly
programming. Are you unable to see the diffrence?

Nonsence. Using *any* macro defeats the rules of assmebly. However,
most of us have moved well beyond using "assemblers" and now use "macro
assemblers" or "high level assemblers."

The rosasm macros are
little else but clever text replacesments for asm instructions. With the
ability to pass paramters to them. Do you understand this?

Well, duh. You are pissing in the wind, Wannabee. This has nothing to
do with the fact that Rosasm macros processor is one of the weakest
around.


"if", "else" "else_if" AND the "end_if" macros are SEPERATE macros. They
are not ONE macro.

No kidding. But "if" and ".if" are macros that do the same thing, but
2 are needed because Rosasm can't figure out which form you need on
it's own. And then there is "..if" and it gets wackier from there.


So what is diffrent between this macro and a HLL "If" -macro/keyword?
First, you do not need the macro. It can be deleted. Also, you can rename
it. Also, you have nothing to loose from using it. Also, you cannot use it
to break the rules of assembly, because, as you can plainly see, I HOPE,
it ___IS____ assembly. René is just a genious. And the solution here is so
simple that nobody but a genious would think about it. Thats why you are
confused.

With every word you are proving that Rosasm has a weak macros
processor. No need to go on.

Lets assume you understood what I was saying, and that you are not
just
deliberatly trying to be an ass. Then you will be able to see, that a "IF"
macro, implementing automatic testing for anything but what is allowed to
test for with normal assembly, breaks the ONE to ONE rule of assembly.

Then don't use macros.

This is pretty clear to me. I cant figure out why you would try to deny
this.

Who's denying it? I'm saying Rosasm macro processor sucks. If you use
macros at all you are no longer programming in assembly but in macro
assembly.


You can easily create such macros in RosAsm. Rene could do it, but then
it
would no longer really be assembly. The nice thing about RosAsm's
if-macros is that they do some of the work of a traditional if
statement,
while remaining 100% assembly programming.

Your
explanation is not the reason why those macros fail, the reason is
Rosasm's weak macro system.

Yes. _You_ may call it that. But this is because you fail to understand
the diffrence between "weak" and "high resolution". RosAsm is high
resolution programming. = Assembly.

Redefining terms won't help. Weak = weak.

Are you a complete idiot? What TERM? a term you created on the spot, while
you wore pissed off because you are to fucking immature to take some
contructive critism? Do you think me, or anyone else should accept such
terms, you just fucking pulled out of your ears?

Idiot. Your the one who pulled a term out of your ass: "high
resolution"
I was responding to your crack-pot reasons explaining why Rosasm macros
system is so weak.


The rosasm macros isnt about babysitting the programmer. They are about
creating readability at no cost or consequences at the quality of the
assembly code. I think frankly that you do not understand this. Do you
even try to?

I think frankly I do understand this more than you will ever do so.
Rosasm macros have been shown to produce *less* quality assembly code.
You should really stop pissing in the wind, you are getting drenched.



The RosAsm macros _are_ assembly.

No they are not. They are macro assembly just like macros in any
assembler.

They are carefully designed to NOT break
the one to one with assembly.

As a rule, macros do break one-to-one assembly, otherwise there is no
point to having a macro assembler. But you are being absurd again. A
simple m2m macro already breaks this rule. Are you saying Rosasm is
not able to do this kind of macro? If yes then it *really really
sucks* if no then *you suck*

Thats what this whole argument is trying to
show you.

You succeeded. Rosasm has a simple macro processor for writing simple
macros. No big deal really. It just doesn't compere to other
assemblers that have much more powerful macro processors and built in
interpreters.



So Rosasm macro system is so weak that you need to make multiple
versions of the same macro to get the task done.

Of course not. Why would you say that? The above set will allways work.
But this is about something Rene has allways been tooting. Visibility.
To allways try be aware of what one is doing. Rene only offers the choise.
He can't control what every user is doing. I have broken theese prinsiples
several
times. But it was theese macros that made me slowly aware of the short
jump scope rules,
so I think they are very good in that respect. If he made some If-macros
that allways worked,

Most assembly programmers become aware of the jump scope rules rather
early. After having learned this, I want no more anything to
consciously do with them. The compiler is there to do the tedious work
for me.


I would not have become aware, by using those, that they would sometimes
be long, and sometimes be short.

Maybe you should've read a good assembly book, like Art of Assembly.

And this is sometimes an important
information. Also, by using the short form, RosAsm will allways alert me,
when theres is more code between the jumps, than they can handle, and this
is an excellent oportunity to sometimes rewrite that code inbetween as a
sepearte routine.

Theese macros are excellent in so many ways. They are simple, they are
educational and they are readable, and they remain 100% assembly code.
They are simply asm memonic text replacements. And nothing is hidden. And
the user may not become ignorent of them. If you want to call all theese
marvellous things, by the term "weak", then by all means. Who cares? In my
view they are very strong.

Well okay. but you have low standards for you tool. However you feel
about them, they do not compare to more powerful macros systems
available in other assemblers and your statement in an earlier post
claiming of their power is simply false.


:) Thats hard to messure. But for productivity, RosAsm is way ahead.


If you count demos as productivity, you're sadly off the mark. Other
than Rosasm itself, the only significant application I've seen is a
Nintendo emulator. Compare that with an 8086 corss assembler written
in HLA.

Of course demos are a sign of productivity. Are you nuts? Anyway what is
this new cross assembler you are speaking of? I never heard about it ?

You should be aware that only a few assembly programmers post here
(even if everyone here were assembly programmers).
It's nothing new. It's been around for years and it's been mentioned
before, but since you blindly believe everything Rene says, you learned
to ignore such things.

But I was mistaken, it's a 6809, not 8086.
http://www.coco3.com/


AHAHA. Are you completly GONE? Do you even suggest comparing that funny
little quirk with RosAsm ? You have some serious nerve, my friend, I'll
give you that.

Of course. It can do everything Rosasm can do. And more since it
allows you to adjust linking parameters as well. Try writing
self-modifying code if you can figure out how to change sections in
Rosasm.

HIDE ? Is this the Cross assembler you talked about above?

Do you even know what a cross assembler is?

Hide is a SHELL
for a textconverter, that uses FASM for assembly. It a nice shell, no
doubt, it raises HLA some levels. But you do not think that anyone but you
and Randall Hyde would even consider waiting 5 seconds for jumping hoops
through all that for compiling 4 innocent lines of asm code, for doing
nope?

More pissing in the wind, I see. Keep deluding yourself, Bee.


If that's a demo, you're off your rocker.

The HIDE IDE? Or HLA which is underneath, or FASM at the backend? No, it a
bit more then a demo, okey. Its nice. The IDE. No doubt, but to be frank,
it HAS nothing todo comparing against RosAsm. I think the thought is even
revolting. I get green and red rasches over my arms and feet just for
thinking that anybody could have so many fuses blown in their brain they
could belive in such a hideous lie.

Rosasm = IDE for converting written assembly to executable/dll
HIDE = IDE for converting written assembly to executable/dll/library
Rosasm: can call up debugger, resource editor, help file, etc.
HIDE can call up debugger, resource editor, help file, etc.

Both get the same job done. One took a decade of heavy coding and
tries to do everything, and does everything poorly. The other took a
couple years of light coding, can integrate with many tools that do the
job well. It's a no brainer. If I at any time thought Rosasm does a
better job than HIDE, I would switch to it.


is a very good demo to demonstrate what HLA is. Because it take 5
seconds
at compiling 4 lines of code.

:))))) :)))))) :)))))

ohhhhh. Please, let me take a minute.....

:))))) :)))))

With modular programming, you will rarly exceed that amount of time no
matter how large your codebase gets. You can work on a 100 meg project
and it would still take 5 seconds if it's managed well.

I like to use the argumentation style of you master here: Prove that !
:))) Maybe that will teach you what kind of argumentation he many times
chooses.

No need. Just follow the logic if you have any. You only have to
assemble the small bit of code you are working on at any one time.
Everything else is pre-compiled and only needs linking. If you change
code anywhere, only the modified unit is assembled.

When
discussing features, Rosasm has HLA beat on speed. That's it. We all
already know this, Wannabee.

Of course.

But when it comes to comparing the
assembler feature for feature, HLA has Rosasm beat with both hands
tied.

If even remotly true, which of course it isnt, this would be FASM, the
only assembler in the "HLA-system". Why do you insist on this preparser be
called an assembler? Whats to gain from such a lie?

HLA offers features even beyond those of FASM (though the lead is
slowly shrinking). There is really no comparisson. HLA is leagues
above Rosasm. When it comes to features, Rosasm probably only has
GoAsm beat. But with the 64bit GoAsm looming, this may no longer be
true.

Yeas. :)))) And what do you have of evidence to this? I will accept
pointers to demos. Please. It be fun. Just list them all, and I list the
demos of the RosAsm programmer.

What, you mean all those demos that show individual bits of Windows GUI
programming? Most HLA programmers don't churn out Windows demos,
though there are some floating around, though not as much as you woud
find for MASM. HLA (and MASM for the most part) programmers are mostly
interested in writing assembler code that can integrate with their
HLLs.

You'll find only a few HLA programmers who work on full asm
applications.

Name one! Master PDF writes in C. You use HLA. Where is the one that uses
assembly? Must be Persival? Or was it this guy active in the Random
discussion. Whats its name again?

Poor Bee, there you go thinking again that everyone who uses HLA (or
other assemblers for that matter) post here.

Now by demos if you mean solving typical programming problems, or
examples on writing portable code using HLA assembly, you'll find more
of those around.

If there are any, I like pointers please?`Lets see how many there are. etc.

Try the HLA examples package. It's on webster. There are others in
the aoaprogramming files section. You'll need to be a member. If you
promise to be decent, you can join it.

There should be at least 10000 HLA demos, to acount for even the once
produced by myself. As I have produces close to 10 demos or something
and
still counting. But when we add in the insance amount of demos by the
other RosAsm programmers, its not going to stack up well for HLA is it ?

Yes, demos and demos. Where are your applications that other people
use? I have several. HIDE alone has several dozen and that already
beats all the users of Rosasm.

Okey. Maybe we could see what applications they created with it?

Keep talking about productivity though, it is very amusing.

:))) To me it really is.
- So. What have we got so far :
Rumors about demos. and HIDE. Is that what you got to point at for the
thousands of HLA users?

Poor Bee. A hundred Windows demos are no more productive than 6. But
you fail to understand that HLA users don't churn out demos by impulse
as they work in assembly to support their HLLs. We're talking about
productivity, not demos.


[clipped long list of non-assembly features]

After naffing your way to a defense of HLA patetic status in the asm area
-Who do you think is going to bother placing money on a bet you initiated?

Whatever you may say to convince yourself, these are not assembley
features. A debugger has nothing to do with the assembly tool itslef.
It's a crap shoot. You are naming IDE integration features. By the
way, Rosasm falls behind whith that respect as well, but it does have
some good points. The assembler portion itself is bare-minimum and
hardly worth mentioning when stacked up against other assemblers.



Compared to RosAsm. They all fall down.

Keep trying.

Resource editor, debugger, disassembler, etc. Other assemblers have a
full choice of great tools they can integrate with, Rosasm is stuck
with the half-assed Betov implementations. Two thumbs down.


Never stopped.

*** all anti GPL bastards!

Newsflash, Rosasm is anti GPL.

Yes. So say a moron.

Then convince us that Guga licence is GPL. In fact, I've heard you and
Betov mention "better than GPL" which is no longer GPL. No big
surprise since Betov is anti-GPL as well.


-sevag.k
www.geocities.com/kahlinor

.

Loading