Re: Help me about this question.

On Mar 2, 12:15 am, Betov <b...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"r...@xxxxxxxxxx" <r...@xxxxxxxxxx> écrivaitnews:1172820063.008548.63000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

No doubt guys like you *can* read and understand it.

No doubt you *can't*, clown.

Dream on.


Such is one of
the benefits to brute-force coding when the reader himself does a lot
of brute-force coding

Probably because Asmers are able to read Asm...

No doubt you find the FASM source code easier to read than the typical
FASM application. I noticed there were few, if any, macro invocations
in the source code. As you're on record for saying that you don't
understand FASM macros all that well, it's a good thing there are no
macros in the FASM source code.

I guess "true ASMers" can't read macros, eh?



(as witnessed by reading through your
disassembler source code).

Quite frankely, the day you will be able to read and understand
the Source of the RosAsm Disassembler,

That day was a long time ago. Remember how I pointed out the failings
of your algorithms? Remember how I pointed out the brute-force
approach you took with your code? Remember how I pointed out how
pathetic your hex to string conversion algorithm was when you were
complaining about the quality of the HLA standard library code? Now
granted, RosAsm's syntax, combined with your particular programming
style, makes code quite a bit more difficult to read and comprehend
than it ought to be; but obfuscation issues aside, it's pretty obvious
that I *was* able to read and understand your source code.


you will have bought
yourself another brain. Not because of the way it is written,

Yes, it is written rather poorly.


but because the involved logic and complexity is way over the
capacities of what actualy stands inside your head.

Sorry, dude. But the brute-force algorithms you use hardly qualify as
"complex". It's pretty clear looking at your source code that you
didn't have a whole lot of recent programming experience when you
wrote the code. It's also obvious that you have a complete lack of
knowledge of modern data structures, algorithms, and software
engineering principles.



I don't see how you came to that conclusion. I said that I was not the
author of FASM, a tiny part of the HLA system.

FASM is _WAY_ more important and _WAY_ more serious than
your HLL Pre-Parser, clown.

To you, perhaps. But you don't speak for the whole world. Given that
FASM, to date, has no books available for it, that fact alone makes it
less important than MASM, NASM, Gas, and (yes) HLA. Someday, a decent
FASM book might appear; then we can reevaluate FASM's importance in
the big scheme of things. For now, however, FASM fits into a nice
niche for people who want an assembler syntax that is similar to NASM
but is faster, has slightly better macro capabilities, and produces
better object code. It is not a good choice for beginners, which is
where all the action is with respect to "importance".


The fact that you are not even
able to write a poor HLL Pre-Preparser the short and clean
way, and need millions of this or that for shitting it out,
is another story.

Oh well. Whatever I have or have not been able to write, it's still
turning out to be a heck of a lot more important than anything you've
ever done. I realize that makes you burn with jealousy (obvious from
your constant attacks on HLA), but that's your problem, not mine.



I guess you claim to be the "Author of Nothing" as you didn't write
the Symbolic Debugger you include with RosAsm?

As opposed to you, clown, i don't have to "claim" anything
about myself.

Please show me where I claimed to be the author of FASM. Those are
words *you* seem to be claiming I said.



I see a bit of a double standard here. It's okay for RosAsm to have
more than one author, it's not okay for the HLA system to have more
than one author. Right.

Right, clown:

* On one hand, you are unable to write anything and steal
other's works.

Exactly what work was stolen? Who has been deprived of using anything
(e.g., FASM) because of my actions? You might look up the definition
of "steal" sometime. It's very specific: it involves property rights
and there is no property involved here.

Perhaps you mean "steal" in the intellectual property sense? Even
that doesn't fly. Read the FASM license sometime. Even without Tomasz'
blessing (which HLA has), it is perfectly acceptable to use FASM as
part of another product. Of all people around here, *you* should
understand this. After all, you're the one constantly pushing "open
source" and how people ought to use RosAsm (and other open source
code) to produce their own assemblers. You even lament the fact that
FASM wasn't written in such a way as to make it easier to use as an
"assembler development kit" (presumably to offer an alternative to
what I have on Webster). Get a clue- I'm using FASM source code in
exactly the way you want it to be used. However, you call that theft.
Again, the double standard in place -- it's cool for other people to
use FASM (or YASM, or whatever) in this capacity, but it's not okay
for me to do this. Hmmmm...



* On the other hand, RosAsm is a collective development,

HLA is a collective development. Big deal.

which purpose has never been to "sell Betov", who is
nothing but one volunteer among the other ones.

The purpose of HLA has been to educate new users. The only person who
thinks the purpose of HLA is to "sell me" is you. The fact that people
have afforded me some respect because of my authorship of HLA may
drive you mad with jealousy, but other than you (and a few of your
minions), no one buys your argument that I do this to "sell myself".
If I really wanted to "sell myself", the last thing I'd produce would
be an assembly language. There are far more popular products I could
write if "selling myself" were my goal.



Maybe I've not done anything "real", but you can't convince the
thousands of happy HLA users that this is the case.

Oh! _Yes_, i can.

You've not been very successful to date.
All you've managed to do is alienate everyone, even non-HLA users.

Enough is to ask them to remove FASM
from your package and to give a try to your HLL Pre-
Parser... and to take a look at what FASM is, and at who
wrote it.

Again, FASM is not necessary to use HLA.


Easy.

I don't see anyone giving up HLA yet. What's your point?


But how many HLA users do you see defecting to other products once
they've learned assembly programming with HLA? If it were all "smoke
and mirrors" as you suggest, they wouldn't be "lost to assembly
forever" as you're fond of saying.

Fact is that they _are_ lost for Assembly.

Of course they are. :-)
As long as they don't use a "Betov-approved" product, they're "lost to
assembly". By your definition, of course. Funny, I don't see too many
HLA users feeling that way. Even the few who *have* moved on to use
other assemblers.


Almost none of them
recover from your criminal swindlings.

Probably because HLA does everything, and more, than they will ever
need.


They simply _leave_ and
vanish. Where are your "users", clown? Where are the Applications
they have written, clown?

Where are your users?
Where is the massive quantity of new applications?
Most of the demos you keep pointing at were written by people who've
moved on. What's your point?


[Yes, i know, you have already provided the links "over and over",
but i have yet to see one application. And would i ever see one
Application, one another day, this would be an HLL Application]

He who refuses to see...


BTW, did you notice that Webster turned over 8,000,000 hits on Feb
14th? Perhaps you'd like to believe that AoA is "pedantic BS" but the
bottom line is that it didn't become the most popular text on the
internet on assembly language programming by "not counting as
something." It became popular exactly because it *is* "something".

Sure, clown: The most scandalous swindling that we ever got,
in the Assembly arena. Congratulations.

Thanks,
Randy Hyde

.