///Wannabee Rants


//\\\\o//\\\\annabee <Free" wrote:

When it comes to HLA, I thank my ignorance every day.

Yet you make proclamations about it as though you know what you're
talking about. Perhaps you should preface any mention of HLA in your
posts with "I am ignorant about what HLA really is, but... <<fill in
whatever comment you wish to make>>". At least that would be
intellectually honest.


I have heard that HLA is written in C, bison, and flex.

Yes, the HLA compiler is. What does that have to do with the HLA
libraries.


What are you
saying, that he wrote HLA in C, but the HLA library in (what)?

Assembly language.


Second. If the library is really written in (what?),

assembly language

and it "sure as hell
doesnt look like C",

assembly language generally does not.

then why does he offer his user something less then
this,

less than what? Written in C? You seem to be the one complaining about
it being written in C, even though it is not. Perhaps you're
complaining about it being written in assembly language? You make no
sense.


and something diffrent then the tool he used to produce those libs.

???
The libraries are *obviously* produced with the tool I used to produce
them. Your statement is logically false.

If those libs are good, the tool used to make them must also be good, or
what?

Yes, the libs are good. They are written in assembly language. The tool
that compiled them, HLA, is also quite good. :-)



Third, HLA is much to uninteressting

If it's so uninteresting, why do you talk about it all the time?

and Randall Hyde is much to critical
of asm in general for me to bother to find out anything more about it.

Then why do you discuss it as though you actually know something about
it?


He
became an idiot to me with his recursive parantesis,

Wow, you let the syntax of an assembler control your emotions? How sad.

and pascal+c syntax
bastardcrash.

Actually, the HLL-like control statements are more based on Modula-2
and Ada, but I wouldn't expect you to know this. You see a "#" and and
"begin" and assume it's Pascal+C.


Plus his many insane attacks on RosAsm, for no reason at
all.

:-)

RosAsm beeing the best assembler

Well, you've admitted that you don't know much about HLA. So how could
you possibly claim that RosAsm is better than HLA when you don't know
anything about HLA? So you've played around with NASM and FASM a
little. What makes you think you are qualified to claim that RosAsm is
the best assembler? Sorry, dude. You just don't have the experience to
make such claims.

ever created on windows, and
possibly at all plattforms.

Given that it doesn't run on Linux, explain how it could possibly be
the best assembler created on Linux.


Forth, HLA is dog slow.

Hmmm..
Last time I checked, HLA was processing machine language statements at
a rate of 50,000 lines/second. Granted, there are faster assemblers out
there, but this hardly rates as "dog slow". Maybe you were talking
about greyhounds? :-)


Fifth. I have seen some of the code for his "roll over and die" stuff.

What would that be?

This is the worst possible gay code I have ever dirtied my mind trying to
make head and tails from.

What exactly is "gay code"? Happy stuff?


So even without knowing what goes into the standardlibrary,

You are unqualified to to make any comments about it. Particularly to
make claims like it is written in C.

this is way
more info than I need to know that HLA belongs in the recyclebin.

What info is this? This "gay code" you're referring to sounds like a
fabrication of your's. If there was something *real* going on here, why
wouldn't you post a link? (quick, make one up so you can claim you're
not just fabricating stuff here).


I he wants me to cuddle his intellect, he better try the straight and
narrow for a while, and start posting that "yes, RosAsm really is an
awsome assembler, and I have much to learn from Betov".

What could I learn from Rene? He has mastered 25 machine instructions
and doesn't bother trying to expand his knowledge of x86 assembly
language. His software engineering techniques are non-existant. He
produces code almost nobody wants to use. And he has a bad attitude
(something you've picked up from him quite well). Name one thing in
the RosAsm *assembler* that ought to be in HLA. Of course, the problem
is that you don't know HLA, so you don't even know if there *are* any
unique features in RosAsm that should belong in HLA.



Because those would be the facts.

Strange, you talking about "facts" when your previous posts contained
so many incorrect statements and you constantly shoot off your mouth
when you don't know what you're talking about.

Assuming you could all be real people, I
suggest stopping the protective attitude and start to study why and how
theres no applications written with your assemblers, and not clinging to
the strange idea that it is because you have intelligent users.

Assuming you could be a real person, why don't you stop attacking all
the other products and people around here? Are you so insecure in your
choice of RosAsm that you must attack other products and people to make
yourself feel better?

Yes. HLA
probably has the most intelligent "users" as it has none. Because,
intelligent users would not use such patetic tool.

Whatever.


Try stop shitting in your own nest!

Now you sound like a 14-year old. Happy with yourself?
Cheers,
Randy Hyde

.