Re: Definitions - What are yours?

On Jul 31, 11:15 am, Betov <be...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"rh...@xxxxxxxxxx" <rh...@xxxxxxxxxx> écrivaitnews:1185903306.775777.256230@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

please describe the language features in
HLA that could not be implemented using user-written macros. If you
manage to do that, then you will really have accomplished something

Funny.

:)

Well, this is opening a quite amusing door, clown. That is,
if you want to demonstrate that your HLL can do the job of
an Pseudo-Assembler, just post an HLA example and its counter
part in pseudo-Assembly-passed-do-to-FASM, from bottom up. That
is to say, the very same main source, and all the set of user
defined macros that would resolve the *entire* Source.

I have asked you on many occasions to post some RosAsm example that
demonstrates some assembly language that could not be directly written
in HLA. Not "in-line assembly passed down to FASM" code, but HLA code,
in the HLA language.

As usual, you've declined to post any code. You don't take challenges,
remember.



Good luck, clown.

Feel free to post some code. I'll post the equivalent HLA code. If you
feel that it's just FASM code, then you'll be in a good attack
position, no?

So good ahead, post your code. I'm waiting for your examples of code
that cannot be programmed in HLA. I realize you know this is possible
to do (you've even admitted it in the past, e.g., vis-a-vis Beth
Stone's example), but as long as you're looking at this funny opening,
give it your best shot.



And do not forget to verify everything carefully, because i
fail to imagine how you could make fully sure that these
are the macros, which are doing all of the job, and not the
HLL, here and there.

Like I said, give me *any* assembly program that you claim is 100%
assembly. No macros, no HLL code, nothing but assembly. Let's see if
HLA can't do the exact same stuff.



By the way, it would be the same dilemna as the one of your
victims, that you deprived of any possibility of ever knowing
where they would be writing "pseudo-inline-Assembly" or pure
HLL.

Well, if you're such the expert assembly language you intimate that
you are, feel free to post the code that demonstrates HLA cannot be
called an assembler.

Or aren't you willing to back up your words with facts?
hLater,
Randy Hyde

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "We Never Use Assembly Language"
    ... too bad that I expect the same from macros that I use. ... I guess Rosasm is no longer written in assembly. ... does not detract from a tool being an assembler. ... it raises HLA some levels. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: HLA StdLib2 criticism
    ... The macros in HLA are optional, ... You have frequently claimed that HLA is the best "assembler". ... compiles into a single machine instruction. ...
    (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)
  • Do People Really Learn Assembly with HLA?
    ... > crowd who thinks that macros are Assemblys' high level constructs. ... than MASM, for example). ... of any assembler available for the x86 back then (and today, ... only to HLA). ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: .EXE -> .ASM -> .EXE
    ... HLA, why would they even come you your forum? ... becoming RosAsm users). ... needs to learn assembly language. ... I do think it would be much more an improvement you write an assembler, ...
    (alt.lang.asm)