Re: Base pointer
- From: "randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 26 Jun 2006 11:30:10 -0700
Herbert Kleebauer wrote:
"randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" wrote:
Herbert Kleebauer wrote:
It is not the processors but your fault that you
restricted the 16-bit edition of "The Art of Assembly Language" to
16 bit operations and addressing modes.
Obviously, you've never read the 16-bit edition or you would know that
it *does* cover the 32-bit stuff.
No, I preferred to read the Intel manuals instead.
I'm sure you did :-)
But that means you're not in a good position to talk about what appears
in "The Art of Assembly Language", now, does it?
And it is
a good advice for any assembly beginner to ignore second level
literature and to use the original one (and that's true for the
processor and the OS API).
You keep saying that, and maybe this concept even worked for you. But
it doesn't work for most beginners. The reference material is great...
for reference. It doesn't do much of a job for teaching, though. If
all the world needed were reference manuals, there wouldn't be a market
for books that use a tutorial style.
cheers,
Randy Hyde
.
- References:
- Base pointer
- From: leon800219
- Re: Base pointer
- From: randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Base pointer
- From: Herbert Kleebauer
- Re: Base pointer
- From: randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Base pointer
- From: Herbert Kleebauer
- Base pointer
- Prev by Date: Re: Book on Assembly
- Next by Date: Re: Have fun
- Previous by thread: Re: Base pointer
- Next by thread: Re: Base pointer
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
