Re: Download counts of assemblers.

rhyde@xxxxxxxxxx <rhyde@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote...
Herbert Kleebauer wrote:
- why did you choose HLA and not a real assembler

Unlike you and Rene, who have your own agendas and products to push,
most people who want to learn assembly language don't buy this line at
all. They see that all the machine instructions are there, they see an
easy path to learning how to use those machine instructions, and they
are quite satisfied with HLA. Of course, you and Rene don't think that
MASM is an assembler, either, but that's your problem, not the problem
of people who are learning assembly language programming. Beginners
really don't give a flying pile of crap about subtleties you and Rene
like to draw, such as the difference between a "basic assembler" and a
"macro assembler" and a "high-level assembler." They see the fact that
all of these support the x86 instruction set and that the higher-end
assemblers (e.g., the "high-level assemblers") can do everything the
other assemblers do, and lot's more. People just don't buy this crap
that you and Rene are feeding about how if an assembler has "too many
features" you just can't call it an assembler anymore. They (rightly)
figure that if you can do *everything* that a basic assembler does,
they can choose to ignore any additional features if they really want
to operate in a "basic assembly language" mode.

So the better question would be: why would you have possibly considered
a weaker assembler for the job?

On one point, I respectfully disagree... Calling something an assembler
simply because it can turn x86 instructions into object code is a bit of
a stretch. I've seen several HLL compilers that support inline
assembly, but I'd hardly call them assemblers. You have to draw the
line *somewhere*.

Now, where exactly this line should be drawn is a good question. I
would think that it would have something to do with the focus of the
product -- If it's assembly with macros/abstractions, it's an assembler.
If it's statements with bits of assembly sprinkled in between, you're
really talking about a HLL compiler with inline assembly. Or something
like that.

However, I would definitely agree that beginners don't really care about
the distinction between Betovian "pure" assemblers and "high-level"
assemblers. Nor should they.

David
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: On-line Review of "Art of Assembly"
    ... > RosAsm is a totaly new assembler). ... RosAsm is just SpAsm renamed and a few versions further on...it's ... SpAsm gaining a bad reputation that Rene thought the name change would ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • The Case Against RosAsm (#3)
    ... algorithms" in the past, the truth is RosAsm ... this is because Rene is a self-taught ... back into programming around 1998, ... the proper way to *write* an assembler. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: The Lib debate
    ... > support but (and I'll give you due credit on the idea, Rene, because ... > putting the source code into the libraries and the object files...as ... If you decide that your assembler is ... Rene may think ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: My view on this "Is blah an assembler"
    ... I have programmed many a HLL but this is what allows me to determine ... Rene has also breached all but one or two clauses of the "open source ... _assembler_ and not a "HLL preparser", ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Betov Licencing System (BLS[tm])
    ... Rene wishes lots of people would die. ... > God bless America (the rest of the world isn't even worth to have a god, ... > able to find an assembler program written by you. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)