Re: TMA Assembler?


KiLVaiDeN wrote:

Hello,

First of all, I think that you must be a little bit stupid

Ah, another Rene-in-training, I see.

( let's hope
i'm wrong ) going for HLA while coming from a C background.

And what's so "stupid" about that. The whole point of HLA was to
provide an assembly language whose syntax is familiar to HLL
programmers, such as C programmers. There's less to learn and digest
when the non-machine-language components of the language have a syntax
that is similar to what the programmer is already used to.


What's the
sense of all his ?

Perhaps he wants to learn assembly language programmer faster and
easier than using the alternatives.


When you program in C, specially under Linux, you
can produce ASM.

???
Perhaps the compiler can produce assembly language, the C programmer
does not. Further, if you're suggesting that the OP learn to write
assembly language the way a compiler produces it, well, that would be
worthless. You may as well stick with C at that point.


Real ASM. Not HLA.

Another person who thinks he knows what "real assembly language" is,
eh?
Well, let me simply suggest that if you think the output of a C
compiler is what people would normally consider "real assembly
language" then you really don't understand the benefit of manually
writing assembly language code (though this is pretty obvious from your
other posts, I might point out).


So why learn HLA ?

Because it's faster and easier, and there's a lot more pedagogy
available for HLA than most other assemblers.

It'll be
hundreds times more usefull if you'd learn directly ASM, as you'd be
able to parallel your knowledge of C with the produced ASM code.

Explain how learning the HLA assembly language doesn't allow you to
parallel your knowledge of C with the produced ASM code. A machine
instruction is a machine instruction. And HLA supports them all. How
does a MOV instruction in Gas differ from a MOV instruction in MASM,
TASM, FASM, NASM, or HLA? Yes, the syntax of every one of these
assemblers is different from the others, but once you've learned how to
use a MOV instruction, the human-readable syntax is irrelevant. It's
the semantics that count, not the syntax. If the syntax can be designed
to make it easier to learn the semantics, so much the better.



Besides it seems you are here to flame Betov.

Which he rightly deserves.
You seem to be here to flame HLA. What's the difference?

Well, at least he
provides tools and proved he is a real ASM coder,

What is a "real ASM coder?"
Why does it really matter?
Indeed, Rene *only* knows assembly language. This limited knowledge
*hurts*, not helps, his cause. And anyone who has taken a careful look
at the simplistic assembly language code he writes generally won't be
impressed by his assembly code, unless they're also down at that
unsophsticated level.

producing a real
Assembler.

Real assemblers support static linkage. Toy assemblers compile
in-memory source files. RosAsm might be "real" in the sense that it is
an actual product that a *few* people use, but the truth is that it's
one of the weakest *assemblers* around. The RosAsm crowd tries to argue
that it's not just the assembler, but the editor, debugger, (broken)
disassembler, etc., that make up the "assembler", but the truth is that
the *assembler* component of RosAsm is very weak. If you are impressed
by RosAsm's (the assembler) capabilities, that simply demonstrates your
lack of in-depth knowledge of other products.


This said, I think that you should keep quiet,

Physician, heal thyself!

including
about your racist comments concerning Betov's english,

Uh, language has little or nothing to do with racism. Now had he
started calling Rene some term associated with Rene's skin color/race,
then it would have been a racist remark.

because it only
makes you look more stupid than you already look like.

You might look in the mirror. Confusing a natural language with race
doesn't make one look especially intelligent.



Have fun with HLA, which will be useless for you, well, unless for you
being a C programmer means doing some printf on the screen; You'll be
happy because you'll be able to do the same in HLA !! But then don't
dream about "knowing C" or "knowing ASM".

Prove that point.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: HLA History
    ... >> meaning of the brackets in the Intel Syntax. ... NASM uses a more "traditional" assembly language syntax. ... People claiming that their assemblers are "Intel Syntax" compatible ... suitable for handling HLA output. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Ten years later
    ... assembly language source code should be written in a completely ... Most students give up ASM right after the complete the course. ... assemblers around here. ... HLA supports), then I guess we've got to strike NASM, FASM, and Gas ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: TMA Assembler?
    ... advice and also in parallel be using other assemblers as well, ... Thank you in advance for your advice once I have ... i'm wrong) going for HLA while coming from a C background. ... Real ASM. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: On-line Review of "Art of Assembly"
    ... The real problem, despite what Rene is claiming, was not the ... He likes to make claims about how HLA is so much slower ... than other assemblers; he'll stick with those large numbers for ... compiling RosAsm source files, he'll start feeding you a line about ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: hla set up for the art of assembly
    ... x86 and NASM than HLA is...). ... just like MASM and TASM are "deviant" assemblers. ... You claim it is your favorite language. ... claim that it's syntax is based on C. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)