Re: Help me about this question.

On Mar 2, 8:22 am, Betov <b...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Then, if you can read it, why on earth do you claim it is
unreadable, clown? If a definitve nerd like you, can read
it, everybody should.

Uh, making stuff up again?
Where did I say it was unreadable? These are words you're trying to
put into my mouth. What I did say was "I didn't claim no one could
read or understand the source. I claimed
that it is poorly formatted and not especially easy to read." As this
quote explicitly says, I do *not* claim it is unreadable. I *do* claim
that it could be made more readable. If you don't think that the FASM
source code could be made more readable by the inject of comments and
better source code formatting, then that explains why your source code
looks so bad.

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?

??? I fail to see any relationship with the fact that you
claim FASM to be badly written.

I fail to see where I claim that FASM is badly written.
I *have* claimed it uses brute-force coding techniques. I have claimed
that it lacks comments and the source code is poorly formatted. True,
those are some attributes of badly written code, but by themselves
they don't imply that the source code is badly written. I'm assuming
that you're putting these words into my mouth because your own source
code also possesses these attributes and it *is* badly written, so
you're assuming that because your code possesses these attributes and
is badly written, FASM must be badly written too. Sorry, you can't
make that leap -- it's not logical.

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 have not even been able to understand why RosAsm refuses
to compile its own Win32 Equates list, clown.

Sure. It runs out of memory. Pure and simple. And whatever the reason,
the fact that it cannot assemble it's own equates list (with
appropriate syntax adjustments) is an indication of the lack of
quality in your product. One more example of why your program is
"badly written". If you hadn't noticed, FASM is perfectly capable of
assembling such an equates list. Suggesting that FASM isn't as "badly
written" as you like to claim that I'm saying it is.

You were not
even able to understand the so simple and so easy to read
Symbols Manager, and so on...

Apparently, you don't understand it either, or you would have fixed
the problem a long time ago. Unless, of course, your assembler is
*soooo* badly written that it simply cannot be fixed.

Well, this never prevented you
from selling bullshits, but that's another story.

The defects in your product really have nothing to do with whatever
I'm selling, B.S., or otherwise. The defects in your products are an
indication of how badly written it is (especially given that the
defect in question hasn't been fixed in a couple of years now).

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

Yes, it is written rather poorly.

Clown, i am not here to defend RosAsm against your insanities.

Sure could have fooled me. Most of this post is an attempt on your
part to defend RosAsm.

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.

Clown, you have show in width and in deepth at what extend
you could ignore everything about a what a Disassembler job
could ever be with your utterly useless "Engine". So, you are
in a quite pathetic state for commenting on such a novelty as
what RosAsm Disassembler-Re-Assembler is.

It is rather "novel". Unlike most other disassemblers, it doesn't
produce source code that matches the underlying object code. Of
course, most people interested in using a disassembler aren't that
interested in your "novel" approach.

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".

OK, clown: FASM is a poor little thing, and your PDFs
of bullshits and insanities are pure marvels. OK.

Glad you agree.

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.

Please show us your text, the day you will write somewhere:

"HLA is an HLL Pre-Parser, runing a real Assembler, which
name is FASM, and which author is Thomasz Gritszar".

Actually, I'm glad you brought that point up.
When HLA actually *does* incorporate FASM code in the HLA compiler
itself, HLA will inherit the FASM license. Here's what that license

flat assembler version 1.66
Copyright (c) 1999-2006, Tomasz Grysztar.
All rights reserved.

This program is free for commercial and non-commercial use as long as
the following conditions are adhered to.

Copyright remains Tomasz Grysztar, and as such any Copyright notices
in the code are not to be removed.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are

1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the


The licence and distribution terms for any publically available
version or derivative of this code cannot be changed. i.e. this code
cannot simply be copied and put under another distribution licence
(including the GNU Public Licence).

I would draw your attention to two important parts of this license:

1. Copyright (c) 1999-2006, Tomasz Grysztar.

2. The last paragraph that states that this license cannot be changed.

So when I incorporate FASM code into HLAPARSE, it must use this
*exact* license. I cannot even change it insofar as adding my own name
to the thing. Now if I'm really "selling myself" or "stealing code"
why would I use FASM? Based on it's license, I have to claim that
Tomasz wrote the whole thing. I have to give the copyright to him.
That's hardly something that someone who is writing code just to "sell
themselves" or is just "stealing the code" would be willing to do,
now, is it?

Another one of your pet theories down the drain.

Exactly what work was stolen?

FASM, GAS, MASM, ... the IDEs..., OllyDb, ... everything,
clown. What you you be able to do by yourself?

Why not add Windows and Linux to the list while you're at it? Again,
it's that double standard thing. I'm "stealing" code when the HLA
system makes use of code written by other people. When you (or FASM,
or MASM, or whomever else) does it, it's called "community
development". You're hardly making a convincing argument here.

As for what I'd be able to do myself, there is no question that I
could write any one of these programs you've mentioned up there. It's
not an efficient use of my time to do so. As you, yourself, have
pointed out on numerous occasions, why should anyone write a new
assembler when there are so many available already? Well, the same
principle applies to object code file formatters (which is basically
what I use the back-end assemblers for), IDEs, debuggers, and other
things. Why should I waste time reinventing the wheel on those
products when I can take that time to improve HLA in areas that are
not covered by these other products (e.g., porting HLA to other OSes,
extending HLA language features, and extending the HLA standard
library)? Sure, I could waste time writing my own debugger. Why
bother when OllyDbg does such a great job and its author has been
gracious enough to provide HLA support? Why bother writing an object
code optimizer and a module to emit files in COFF or ELF format when I
can use existing tools to do the job? Heck, by your reckoning I should
be writing my own file system code rather than use the OS'
capabilities for that purpose.

Who has been deprived of using anything
(e.g., FASM) because of my actions?

Not only FASM but also all other Assemblers around which
you have succeeded the impressive performance of drying
out the tiny flow of new comers and beginners. You are
a criminal, clown.

(ah, the truth comes out.)

Dude, if you can't handle the competition, leave the arena. Don't
expect me to apologize to you (or anyone else) because HLA is a
popular product. If you don't like the fact that HLA is popular, then
provide a product that can successfully compete with HLA rather than
just whining about how HLA is "stealing" all the users that you'd like
to see for your own product. You can begin by fixing the defects in
your assembler. Then extend the feature set so that it is comparable
to other assemblers (at least FASM, if not MASM or HLA). Then, of
course, you need to write a book that teaches assembly using your
product. If you're not willing to do the work necessary to attract
these beginners, you're not exactly in a position to complain about
the success of other products whose authors *have* done this work.

You might look up the definition
of "steal" sometime. It's very specific: it involves property rights
and there is no property involved here.

I know that clown. Shame on all of the guys who gave
you acknowlegments for stealing their works.

So you know that I've been given permission to use this work yet you
claim that it's being "stolen". I don't know what they call this in
France, but in the good old US of A that's called a "lie".

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.

Yes, clown, Thomasz is also as ass-hole. Unfortunately,
as opposed to you, this ass-hole is talented.

And unlike you, he is secure enough in his own talents and believes
enough in his own product that he doesn't feel the need to go around
trashing other people and other products as you do.

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.

Stop dreaming that loud, clown: If i am the "only one at
doing something", this is at showing publicly what an
unsignificant nerd you are.

Oh well, I am an "unsignficant nerd" then. If I'm so insignificant,
though, why are you so concerned about me and my products?
Randy Hyde


Relevant Pages

  • Re: Help me about this question.
    ... No doubt you *can't*, clown. ... FASM application. ... complaining about the quality of the HLA standard library code? ... niche for people who want an assembler syntax that is similar to NASM ...
  • Re: Help me about this question.
    ... v1.65 source code and strip it down to just what HLA requires rather ... I have no issue with you freely choosing which features of Fasm you ... I don't really "support" FASM. ... source code output for various purposes. ...
  • Re: Ten years later
    ... bug, or one bug less, could make any difference, would it, ... I'm working with the FASM v1.66 branch (which I'm ... porting over to HLA source format). ... source) v1.66 source code that I started with. ...
  • Re: HLA v1.93 is now available
    ... HLA!= HLL for reasons given above. ... Is it this, clown? ... doing it with an Assembler, where the jumps sizes are under the ... Unfortunately for you, on the important syntaxic points, FASM ...
  • Re: Ten years later
    ... Congratylations, clown. ... FASM, instead of writing those "very few of the features", ... none of FASM's newer features have been used by HLA. ...