Re: Definitions - What are yours?

On Jul 31, 9:50 am, Betov <be...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"rh...@xxxxxxxxxx" <rh...@xxxxxxxxxx> écrivaitnews:1185898400.738351.53010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Where does MASM beat FASM, for example? Nowhere.

The macro facilities are better.
The compile-time language is better.

Then show us, clown.

I challenge you, about Macros, to output a Bitmap created
by MASM Macros (Yes, clown, FASM *CAN* do that).

First all, I never claimed that MASM has a complete superset of FASM's
capabilities. Just that MASM's are better. Certainly there are a few
things that FASM can do that MASM does not. But overall, MASM's macro
facilities are quite a bit more powerful.



I already challenge you to reproduce the RosAsm HLLisms
Macros with MASM (and the RosAsm Macros System is way
simpler than the FASM Macros System...). Still waiting.
Since...

Perhaps you missed the post in this very newsgroup where I accepted
your challenge and showed you, feature by feature, how to implement
each RosAsm macro feature within MASM. I also provided a single
example of something that could not be done with RosAsm. Ergo, I
proved that MASM's macro facilities *are* a proper superset of the
RosAsm facilities, and, therefore, that MASM's macro facilities are
more powerful than RosAsm's. Go back and check the archives.

I realize (by your own admission) that you've been getting a little
senile these past several years and that you don't remember that I've
already provided this proof too you, but given that you know about
your condition, you might try a search of the Google archives before
you starting claiming you're "still waiting."



MASM supports high-level assembly features.

The reason why it is not Assembler.

Really?
Then explain why RosAsm is an assembler when it supports high-level
assembly features. Oh, and forget your arguments about user-written
and "hidden" macros. Explain this in terms of the PREPARSE EQUALS
statement.



MASM supports data types far better than FASM.

Same.

That has nothing to do with the definition of an assembler. Whether we
call something a "byte" and "octet" or an "int8" is irrelevant. It
doesn't change the mapping of instructions to opcodes one bit.

The fact that *you've* never been able to figure out how to put
complex data types into your product is not sufficient reason to claim
that products that do contain these features are not assemblers.



The syntax is closer to Intel Syntax (for those who care).

The MASM Syntax is simply faultive. Period.

Well, that is your opinion. And it is the opinion of many others as
well. But if the Intel Syntax is so bad, why is it that everyone
(including you) tries to claim that their assemblers are "Intel
Syntax"? If MASM's syntax is "faultive" (sic) and MASM's syntax is
about as close to Intel Syntax as you're going to get in modern x86
assemblers, wouldn't that imply that Intel Syntax is also faulty?




There are far more real-world examples written MASM.

Right. And then?

And then, MASM beats FASM when someone wants a lot of examples to look
at.


There are far more books, tutorials, and so on written for MASM.

Right. And then?

And then MASM beats FASM when someone wants to learn assembly language
programming using existing books, tutorials, and so on.


FASM does have some benefits over MASM, but trying to claim that MASM
never beats FASM is absolutely foolish.

The fool is you, clown. Prove otherwise if you can.

I cannot. The fact that I continue to have conversations with you
proves your point :-)
hLater,
Randy Hyde

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: HLA and embedded controllers
    ... and supply you with code to use as I clean up the HLA stdlib. ... the FASM include files up and operational for FASM. ... and that new MASM requires .NET ... redefining MASM language with these macros. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Book on Assembly
    ... FASM macros are not that difficult at all. ... or in a book that teaches assembly language using FASM. ... facilities of the assembler covered in the book. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Rocket Science
    ... >> Also, logically, if MASM is the underlying assembler being used by ... then MASM must always be being run in addition to HLA so ... the MASM or FASM or whatever underlying assembler's speed into its own ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: HLA and embedded controllers
    ... For those who like macros, they are as easy to use as ... For example in FASM you have macro ... but size associated to label is not critical part of assembler ... most programmers getting into assembly prefer them. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: maz v. taz
    ... try to defend your C-Side toy against FASM. ... for dedicated Windows support MASM has many large ... > prefer the lower level approach that assemblers like NASM and FASM ... the very simple reason that its Macros System is not ...
    (alt.lang.asm)