Re: ///HLA StdLib2 criticism
- From: "randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 17 Jan 2007 12:58:14 -0800
Betov wrote:
Static libs are a must have for the HLLs (they are partialy
part of the definition of what an HLL is, in some way), but
they are also radicaly incompatible with Assembly, because
this obsolete method would be adding black-box programming
to black-box programming. We already have enough of this with
the powerful existing OSes APIs.
Oh ye who understands everything. Explain to us why DLLs are okay (and
not supporting black box programmer) whereas static libs are some sort
of abomination because they do support black box programming.
Oh, I forgot, we already know the reason: RosAsm supports DLLs but does
not support statically linked libraries.
Linux does not exist, for me.
A strange comment from someone who pushes the GPL and hates commercial
software. Yeah, we've heard the ReactOS story over and over again, but
the truth is you use Windows, all your users use Windows, and ReactOS
is still a *long* ways off. The bottom line is that you're a Windows
developer.
You've argued that you chose Windows over Linux because the mass market
chose Windows. Given your constant comments about how you don't care
about the popularity of your product, this would seem to have zero
weight in your OS decision. I'd think you'd be more willing to go with
the smaller crowd that believes as strongly about open source as you
do. Especially given your lack of success (and popularity) on the
Windows platform, it's pretty obvious you made a big mistake in going
with Windows rather than Linux.
unfortunately MASM is far from dead, and FASM was bigger
hit for NASM than for MASM.
Sad but true (the second remark).
The first remark is also true. You just *wish* it weren't true. But
"Betov Wishes" have a sad way of never coming true.
you must accept the reality, MASM is there, most popular,
and if I want to make something "for all assembly programmers",
i just can't ignore MASM.
You, also, have to accept the reality.
It seems to most of us that he has accepted reality. MASM is the
800-pound gorilla amongst all the 8-pound assemblers out there. If
you're going to develop a library and expect a lot of people to benefit
from it, you need to make it available for MASM users as well as other
assemblers.
That is, that being
"popular" does NOT mean a thing.
Sure it does. It's *very* rare of the majority of the population to
stick with a complete loser of a product. Certainly it is the case that
a few excellent products get ignored, but by and large, people will
move away from crap to better things if the product is really that bad.
MASM is quite powerful. It is well supported (and not just by
Microsoft). People like that. The main reason people have been
migrating away from MASM has little to do with FASM, NASM, whatever,
and just about everything to do with the fact that MASM only runs
(practically) under Windows.
You got the perfect
demonstration at the FASM Board, from the number of votes for
TASM, as a "popular Assembler".
TASM is an excellent product. The fact that Borland does not sell it as
a stand alone product anymore doesn't change that fact. TASM hasn't
gotten *worse* simply because there haven't been a lot of new releases
lately. It's just as good as the day the last version was produced.
The fact that it doesn't fit into *your* politically-charged universe
doesn't reduce TASM's usefulness one bit.
What means a thing, is about "what is produced with a given
Assembler".
While that means something, it certainly isn't the only metric by which
we can judge a computer language. You keep bringing it up because this
is the *only* thing you can point to with respect to RosAsm -- the few
demos and apps that have been produced with it.
There are other issues that are equally, if not more, important.
* Support from the user base.
* Availability of pedagogical material.
* Library code availability (whether *you* have an interest in this or
not, most other programmers do).
* etc.
I recall you of your problem for speed comparisons
with apps over the _modest_ 300Kb for available Apps. Mind you,
it was 1000 times more critical for MASM, which was there since
ages, and the defenders of which have always been unable to
show anything that could be used for contest.
Been there, done that. Remember when you used to claim that RosAsm was
10-30x faster than MASM? Some simple benchmarks disproved that real
quick. And anyone that wants to compare the performance of some larger
assemblies between MASM, FASM, TASM, and GAS can simply compile any of
the larger HLA applications and demos and run the resulting output code
through these different assemblers. Piece of cake.
Now, the fact that 10, 100 or 1000 unsignificant nerds, or un-
aware beginners, could go on downloading MASM does really, and
absolutely, mean nothing.
To you. Actually, it does mean a lot to you. It annoys you to death
that people are choosing MASM over your own product. But you put up a
good face and try to pretend it doesn't bother you. However, if it
didn't really bother you, you'd never bring the subject up.
Another thing is that, if you "want to make something for all
assembly programmers", instead of writing anything in Assembly,
you'd better learn the basics of the Propaganda Methods aside
Randall Hyde. At this point of view, compared to him, you are
not even a beginner.
I'm pretty sure that he's figured out that he doesn't want to use
*your* methods for attracting people to his product :-)
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
.
- References:
- HLA StdLib2 criticism
- From: vid512@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: HLA StdLib2 criticism
- From: Betov
- Re: HLA StdLib2 criticism
- From: vid512@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: HLA StdLib2 criticism
- From: Betov
- Re: HLA StdLib2 criticism
- From: vid512@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: HLA StdLib2 criticism
- From: Betov
- HLA StdLib2 criticism
- Prev by Date: Re: HLA StdLib2 criticism
- Next by Date: Re: HLA StdLib2 criticism
- Previous by thread: Re: HLA StdLib2 criticism
- Next by thread: Re: HLA StdLib2 criticism
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
