Re: Definitions - What are yours?

On Jul 30, 10:56 pm, Betov <be...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"rh...@xxxxxxxxxx" <rh...@xxxxxxxxxx> écrivaitnews:1185834706.009657.96390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

It is a sad commentary on the people who post to this group that
everyone is spouting their opinions and no one has bothered to pick up
a text book on the subjects of programming languages and compilers to
see what they have to say about the subject

Whereas you, clown, who post more than 40 screens of bullshits
based on "selected books opinions" the best matching with your
swindling, and on such unreliable source as Wikipedia, which is
nothing but a huge mess of ***, are the truth talking.

Well, let's see, one the one hand we have the Wikipedia, which
although isn't always known for getting everything right, is a
reviewed source based on the opinions and expertise of many
contributors. On the other hand, we have the self-proclaimed "assembly
expert" Rene Tournois who creates definitions on the fly, largely to
exclude products that compete with his. Whose opinion would you trust?


:)

A definition is a definition as clear as a math concept, and this
has no relationship with opinions.

And that's why your opinions on the subject are ignored. That's why I
posted defintions from books and the Wikipedia rather than just my own
opinions. You, on the other hand, continue to post your same, tired,
made-up defintions that attempt to exclude products you don't want to
have to compete with from the "assembler" category.

For example, an Assembler outputs
what the programmer writes.

No. An assembler, like any other compiler or translator program
converts what the user writes to something else.

We call this the 1:1 correspondance,

No modern assembler follows this "holy" 1:1 correspondance you're
talking about. Furthermore, no assembler ever *has*.

and
as soon as this 1:1 is broken by a tool, this tool can no more be
called an Assembler. Period.

Then RosAsm is not an assembler, period. Because it breaks this rule.
Take a look at your PREPARSE statement sometime if you don't believe
me. If that's too much for you to wrap your head around, take a look
at macros.


You, as a swindler, can be in another
opinion, but this will never change a inch to the definition.

You're right that my opinions on the subject won't change the
defintion. It's just that my opinions on the matter are more in-line
with the standard defintions for these terms. I don't try to invent
terms, as you have done, to try and exclude products I don't like from
the "assembler" category. You have a lot of nerve calling other people
"swindlers" when this is exactly the purpose of the definitions you've
created.



Another thing is that this thread was wrongly started as a definition
one. It is, in fact, evidently, and as usual, a thread about "Can
HLA be an Assembler?", and nothing else. All of the other things are
there only for spreading smoke around the real problem.

You have a real problem with HLA. You should see a pyschologist. Maybe
hit your wife up for some psychological help, I don't know. Everything
posted to this group is not about "HLA", despite your desire to turn
it into such a thing.



The answer to the *real* question is well known since years:

No an HLL cannot be any Assembler, even if it includes a stolen
Assembler, it passes down to.

Once again, you confuse the implementation of a language with the
definition of a language. Try learning some programming language
design sometime. I realize it's probably a bit over your head, but
you've demonstrated a certain amount of tenacity in these arguments,
surely you can devote the necessary amount of time and energy to study
the subject of language design so you really can have an informed
opinion on things like the defintions of a HLL versus an assembler.

And while you're at it, why don't you *fix* your assembler so that it
has features like those found in modern assemblers, so you don't have
to constantly do stupid things like make up definitions to exclude
products like TASM, MASM, and HLA from the category of "assemblers" in
the hopes that you won't have to compete with them? Attempting to
change the definition of "assembler" isn't going to help you compete
with these better products -- improving your product is the only way
you're going to achieve that.
hLater,
Randy Hyde


.

Quantcast