Re: HLA v1.93 is now available



On May 3, 4:39 pm, Julienne Walker <happyfro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 3, 11:15 am, kistjeb...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:



On 3 mei, 09:33, Betov <b...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

"r...@xxxxxxxxxx" <r...@xxxxxxxxxx> écrivaitnews:1178147659.108183.144840@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

1) I didn't create a NASM back-end for HLA because NASM didn't support
displacement optimization which an HLA back-end must provide.

Jocking again, clown? Take care, because you are going to have to
explain the reason why branch displacement would be any concern in
an HLL.

2) I've said on several occasions that HLA's macro system (compile-
time language) is the most powerful of all the x86 assemblers

HLA not being an Assembler at all, who cares about what your HLL
Preparser does and does not? Then, if your shit is so "powerfull",
why on earth was the NASM macros system not able to "assume" it?

What part of "HLA being designed as an assembly language with HLL
control structures and data types stacked on top rather than a HLL
with support for assembly through inline asm blocks" you don't
understand?

Rene has trouble distinguishing between languages and tools. If he
hasn't been convinced so far, it's unlikely that you'll put a dent in
his armor. Unless you plan on trolling, it's better to leave Rene and
Randy to their little world and just chuckle when they post something
entertaining.

Well said.

Nathan.

.