Re: Why do we use different files for C ?

On 24 aug, 10:26, Betov <be...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
JDavison <j...@xxxxxxxxxx> écrivait news:uK-dnehrm_

You better not be talking about me behind my back, you farceur.

Oh, i was not talking about you. I was talking about this
"Kistjebier" minion, who vanished as soon as he was told
by Master Pdf himself how he had written FASM.

It seems this idiot finaly understood, what i was telling
him since weeks.

Hello there frencie. I see you're up to your old tricks of revisionist
history again, so I thought I'd come back and cue some ppl in about a
few little things. First, lurkers may vanish out of sight, but that
doesn't mean that they're not there. Second, both you and I know of
HLA v2.xx being a complete rewrite HLA v1.xx in HLA v1.9x, and the
reason of getting rid of the C/flex/bison kludge that currently
comprizes the HLA source. And you know that the outcome of that is yet
another assembler, written in fasm that time.

I'll still be here *long* after you're dead and forgotten. Then, you'll
be nothing but a bad memory in everyone's mind.

I am afraid that young boys have a serious advantage on me,

....and with only about 75 members on the rosasm board i wouldn't count
on someone else carrying on your work. Also, 64b LM asm will
eventually replace 32b PM asm, and by the looks of it, that step may
be not too far off in the future. And we already know your opinion on
asm programming in 64b LM.

I learned assembler using HLA and "The Art of Assembly Language
Programming". So I'm *proud* to be a "Minion". Thanks, Randy.

Great. Where are your Applications, written in Assembly, then?

If you're really hell bent on going the asm only way, then why not
devoting all time time and resources to programming for any of the asm
os-es, e.g. MenuetOS?