Re: C# programmer wants to learn assembly?? plz help
- From: Herbert Kleebauer <klee@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 18:13:47 +0100
Betov wrote:
Herbert Kleebauer <klee@xxxxxxxxx> écrivait news:4597A226.100CB4E8
1) FASM killed NASM some times ago, for the only reason that NASM
was written in C, and FASM in Assembly.
That's really interesting. How do you measure success? The number
of installations, the lines of code written till now, the number
of code currently written per day or something else? And where did
you get your information?
I am a simple mind, you know: I simply see how many posts
of users at each Board,
Isn't that a bit to simple? There are much more posts/questions
about MS Office than about a pencil. With your argument the conclusion
would be: there are much more people using MS Office than a
pencil to write. Maybe there is much more documentation and
books about NASM than FASM so there is no need to ask somebody
for help. Or if you need help, you can ask your neighbour for
help because nearly everybody use NASM and can help you whereas
you have to consult a FASM forum to find the few people who
can help you with a FASM problem. Or maybe because NASM is written
in C you can just look at the source code if you have a problem.
These views show clearly that:
* The NASM "users" are pure beginners not even knowing how
to run the beast.
Because once they got it installed the rest is well documented
and doesn't need any help from a forum. Also I asked Frank
for a Linux binary of NASM because I didn't want to copy all
this source files and start a make file where I didn't understand
what it does.
* The NASM "users" are much evidently, at best, HLLers who
may need a trivial routine in Asm, when facing the
limitations of their HLLs.
Wouldn't the more appropriate conclusion: NASM users smart enough
to do it themselves without have to ask for help.
* The FASM users are, for some of them real Asmers. Most of
their questions show that they perfectly know how to use
the beast, and that a couple of them are really doing
"something". Of course not what i call "real life" apps,
as long as doing so would be difficult with FASM, but,
well... that's better than... nothing.
Wouldn't the more appropriate conclusion: FASM users are not
able to do something more than just trivial things without asking
for help.
3) I have no plan and really no reason for ever thinking about
a RosAsm version written in 64 Bits. Why on earth would i?
Who needs 64 Bits?
Who needs ever more than 640 kbyte of RAM?
There is no room for joking, here, Herbert. Fact is that,
when Win32 came out, it was an evident improvement, which
everybody was waiting for.
What do you mean with "everybody"? Do you think RosAsm user
would care if RosAsm is written as 16 and not as 32 bit application
as long as it does exactly the same? Maybe you as programmer
of RosAsm care but not the user.
The oncoming of Win32
effectively arased DOS completely, because of the massive
advantages.
You mean DOS as a desktop operating system but not 16 bit
applications running in Win32. The same will happen with
Win64 / Win32. And then anything you are now saying about
a 16 bit development tool will then also be valid for
RosAsm.
And this is, as well, evident, that, the only
people who may need 64 are the "Market Sellers". Not the
Programmers.
With 16 bit programs you get into troubles if you need
more than 1 Mbyte (640 kbyte) RAM and with 32 bit programming
this happens with 4 Gbyte (2 Gbyte) RAM. And to say, nobody
needs more than 2 Gbyte address space in an application
is as stupid as to say nobody needs more than 640 kByte RAM.
For 99.9999999999999% of the Applications,
64 will be utterly useless, and, in any case, the final
users will never see any difference.
The "final user" will also not see any difference if the
application is a 16 bit program.
So we are in a very
different situation, than th one we got with the 16 to 32
switch.
No, it's exactly the same situation. If you write a command line
tool (console application) which does only simple file IO and
doesn't need more than 64 kByte RAM, it's still much easier
to do this as 16 bit program and the user will see no difference.
The problem is, that the 16 bit API isn't further developed and
if you need new features of the OS, you have to use the 32 bit
API and therefore have to write a 32 bit application. And the
same will happen to the Win32 API. As long as you can live with
the current state of the API you can still go on writing 32 bit
applications, but once you need new features, you will have to
switch to the 64 bit API.
How will you see if an Application is
written in 64 or 32 Bits? This is so absurd that i come to
How will you see if an Application is written in 32 or 16 Bits?
Heeuuuuhhh !!! Still under alchool, Herbert?
??? If you have an exe file which converts all lower case letters
to uppercase letters in a given file, how can you tell whether this
is a 16, 32 or 64 bit application (from a users, not a programmers
point of view)?
PS: There is very big reason for assembly programmer to switch
to 64 bit programming as soon as possible: they finally get
proper names for the registers (r16-r31) and don't have to
mess with this awful names (al,ah,ax,eax, bl,...).
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Next by Date: Re: C# programmer wants to learn assembly?? plz help
- Next by thread: Re: C# programmer wants to learn assembly?? plz help
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
