Re: HLA Stdlib v2.2 is now available.

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 07:53:53 +0200, rhyde@xxxxxxxxxx <rhyde@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 24, 6:35 pm, //\\\\o//\\\\annabee <w...@xxxxx> wrote:
> :-)
> Whatever you say.
> And just how many students have *you* taught such that you have the
> experience to make such a claim?

I quit university when my programming teacher started talking nonsense.

Yes, a quitter knows best. :-)

If you can analyze and feed your teacher the code he wants to see, to get an A, yes, better quit.

Sorry dude, but you don't impress me. What would have been far more
impressive to me would have been for you to stick the university
program out and decided *after* you've been through the courses
whether the instructor was talking nonsense, or not.

It sank in pretty much at once.

I, too, remember
my undergraduate days when I thought I knew a lot more than all the
instructors in the school. Funny thing is that as I began to actually
*learn* the material, I began to discover that those instructors
actually *knew* what they were talking about.

Pointing at books I can do myself.

And when I became an
instructor myself, I encountered several students who, like you,
thought they really knew what was going on when, in fact, they (like
you) were completely off base.

I _am_ off base. And proud of it.

At least most of them *finished* the program and eventually learned
that they really didn't know what they were talking about; unlike you.

Yep. Exactly. _unlike_ me :D

> Funny, the iczelion tutorials do *not* teach assembly language
> programming. And, in fact, it's considerable use of the high-level
> language features of MASM run completely contrary to Rene's claims.
> Care to try again?

It teaches the point. Asm is easy under windows.

You comment is irrelevant.

no it is deeply true.

The Iczelion tutorials do not teach assembly language. They assume the
reader already *knows* assembly language programming. Assembly under
anything is pretty easy if you already know assembly language.
Care to try again?

Assembly under windows, is so easy, it simply does not need any comments.
There are registers, you move data from one to the other, and between memory.
It doesnt get easier than that. Now learning the APIS is useful and takes time. And is the first thing an windows asm programmer needs to see. Izcellion tells him a bit about this. The rest he can learn by slowly adding a little on top of his existing knowledge.

When he has become comfortable with the thing he knows, he add something else.

> Uh, dude, I think you missed the whole point (as you usually do in
> your rants). How many *beginners* have learned assembly language using
> these materials?

How would I know how many?

You're the one talking about how all the materials are great for
beginners. If you have nothing to back up your claims, why are you
making them?

I havent made any claims on behalfe of the rest of the world. I have used and learned from the material. Therefore I know that they are adequate, (for a start) because I was a beginner when I did so. I dont keep track of every asmer that takes away something from materials at other sites.

>> > And feel free to have people give testimonials of the RosAsm "12
>> > Lessons" if this approach is as fantastic as you're claiming.

>> I dont know.

> Neither, apparently, does anyone else. That's the point I'm making.

You are making an ass of yourself.

Ah yes, resorting to name calling and profanity.
A clear indication that even *you* realized you've completely lost
this round...

You are talking out of your ass. I never claimed what you say above I claimed. I said : "I do not know".


Why yes, a sample size of one (and a bizarre sample case at that)
indicates complete and absolute truth.

I posted a range of links. And the one you are talking about I said : "I dont know"

You do realize that it doesn't really matter what *you* (or any other
single individual) thinks or finds "usable and interesting" What
matters is the *average* case.

Not in asm. NEVER in asm.

> Furthermore, given the fact that you've
> been doing assembly language for quite a while (What? ThreeYears now?)
> and you've only achieved the proficiency level you have is not a good
> advertisement for your preferred educational model.

Proof by example is false.

You don't know much about proofs, do you?

Says you? Who led Dictionary ass to the fiasco of the RosAsm symbol "bug"?

There are certainly two cases where a "proof by example" is perfectly
valid.
1) An exhaustive proof.
2) A proof by contradition (where the example provides the
contradiction).

:D Are you still trying to "prove" that my "advertisment" for my "education model" is not good?

As you constantly hold yourself up as the example of productivity with
RosAsm, it's perfectly valid to contract what you have to say by
pointing out that most other people with different tools have become
much more educated and much more productive than you have over the
same span of time.

You can of course not generalize anything I do, and make assumtions based on that about other people, or the tools they use. In order for that to be valid, you would need a complete chart of the hours spent at it, for each of the people you compare against. And etc.

Its a generalization of the whole asm community
based on the results of a single man.

Uh, dude, I think that *I'm* the one that been pointing out how you've
over-generalized your own experiences here. You are really confused,
aren't you?

:D Am I ? Seems it was you making generalizations this time.

Yeohs
have a mountains of them, for instance, that all answers a spesfic task we
may want to know about. Very useful, very short, exceptionally easy to
make use of.

> And they only cover specific tasks, rather than the general process of
> teaching assembly language.
> You just don't get it, do you?

No. You dont get it. You are saying that you cant learn english
incrementally, for instance by reading books not about english. This is
definitly wrong.

Yes, and when you learn incrementally as you've done, you spend three
years and rise only to the level where you're at.

You dont know anything about how many hours I can work, so saying this means nothing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that learning by bits and pieces as
you've done is impossible; I'm saying it's grossly inefficient and you
wind up with some serious gaps in your knowledge.

It is the other way around. It is 100% sure there are gaps in my knowledge. You sentance here is completly meaningless. Who dont have gaps in their knowledge?

Sure, someone can pick up English in conversation; that won't make
them a great writer, however.

And your problem then? Is it that you think you can become a great writer from studying english litterature in school??

One need only look at your's and Rene's
posts to see that.

René's english is the cooolest thing. He has made such wonderful inovations in the english language it will be a long long time til we see it like that again.

Alas, the same is true (for both of you) of your
programming skills.

(Rene would here say "Halas" :D )

While I admire people who *really* make an effort
at self-education, the problem with self-educated people is that there
are all too often major gaps in their knowledge. That's the beautiful
thing about a University education: it forces you to study things
you'd find boring, uninteresting, or flat-out crazy. Stuff you'd never
study on your own. Most of the time, however, this is *exactly* the
material you need to know in order to write decent code.

If you study anything you find boring, you become boring.
We have the internet now. Traditional teachers are obsolete. Peer education and study of their work are imo far more useful. The schools should focus on teaching how to learn effcient. How to search for information. What most traditional schools are doing is that they try to beat a dead horse.

Let me give you a classic example you can relate to. When you first
started playing with RosAsm, you bragged about how you'd spent "10
years programming in Delphi" (undoubtedly a lie, unless you were a
beta tester for Borland) and how you couldn't figure out "linked
lists" until you started using assembly.

I never said so. I said, I was amazed with the ease of using them in asm.
But why do you insist on making this a discussion about me. Why cant you instead try to pick up the argument if there ever was one.

No offense

none taken ***.

(well, yes, some
offense)

You cant offend me in your wildest dream.

intended, but data structures and algorithms is typically the
second or third programming course that students take in a CS program.
That means that (1) you never took any serious programming courses at
the University, (2) you dropped out really early, or (3) you
completely bombed out of the courses.

I have no idea what you try todo. You lost the argument flat earlier, now you are making this into an argument about how and why I went to school? Do you think I care? I am PROUD to have been a dropout. I dont think like you do. Nothing like it. I never will. I wear my dropout hat with pride. I just feel sorry for the guys who could not stumack such a courages and fortunate event.

You'll have to forgive me for
not having any respect for someone who has spent "10 years programming
Delphi" and hasn't figured out how to do a linked list in all that
time.

It is all in your head Randall :D If you had any respect for me, be sure I would do everything I could to break it down and unown it.

Sure, you can learn programming with bits and pieces of tutorials. But
you wind up with *huge* gaps in your education. The linked list
example is classic.

You are a funny little man.

> I don't know? Why do you keep bringing up RosAsm's editor features
> when talking about assemblers, then?

Because it is an assembler, and a very good one, showing the way for other
spesific assemblers.

Yet you keep talking about the *editor* that is built into the RosAsm
system. You *do* know the difference between the assembler in the
RosAsm system and the editor, right? Then again, given how long it
took you to figure out how to create a linked list, I'd not be
surprised to find that you don't know the difference.

:D You still cant muster not sounding like a little girl.

> You *do* realize there's a difference between an editor and an
> assembler, right?

As they both are needed for doing programming, I see no reason to seperate
them.

I guess I'm not surprised.

Randall Hyde, first it would need to enter a very thick skull!

Espesially not when this makes asm programming a true hell, like
with so many of the other assemblers. Intergrated tools helps a lot.

Ditto.

:D itto

>> > Not really.
>> > For team programming, it is a complete disaster.

>> It works well.

> No, it does not.

Yes it does. Why dont you go into the reason you think otherwise.
This is another baseless claim.

Have you ever worked on a team project before?
(and I'm not talking about the joke that is the RosAsm project).
Something that has produced hundreds of thousands of lines of code,
split across a team of five or more programmers actively working on
the same source code base?
I have.

And I can tell you, your schemes just don't work.

What schemes? It was your argument, you sinile old troll. You stated something about a "compete disaster"(sick). I asked you to substanciate it. You never did. It is _your_ baseless claim, dont try to weasel your way out of this one.

BTW, please tell us what source code control system you use with
RosAsm. Surely, if RosAsm is so good at team programming, it has a
fully integrated source code control system, right?

It is called a brain. Plural : Brains.

Better question: do you even know what a source code control system
is?

I hope it is a brain. But I guess you would call for something else.

>> How can you keep claiming thoose visious lies, without an
>> argument?

> What "visious" [sic] lies are these?
> Exactly how many "large teams" or even "medium sized teams" have you
> worked on so that you have the experience to make such claims?

I havent made any claim.

Other than RosAsm is great for team programming and that I'm claiming
"visious [sic] lies" when I claim otherwise?

I havent claimed RosAsm is great for team programming. You claimed it wasnt. So now put up or shut up. Find some basis for this claim first. Then we can debate it later.

Its just simple logic. RosAsm has TITLE to break
down a project into parts for each programmer.

Give me a break.
If you really think that is source code control, boy are you mistaken.

I never claimed it was "source code control". I said it is a way for breaking down the code into logical compartments. Exactly like units, only more evolved.

A project needs a manager.

Yeah, so?


It need planning. It need coordination. The issue of solving a project
well, is not only about the tools, it is about having a good plan first.

And a good plan would involving using good tools suitable for team
development. You seem to be the only person on this planet, other than
perhaps Rene, who would be stuipd enough to believe that a monosource
file format is suitable for team development.

If you took all the units of a Delphi source, and put them in the same file. Wouldnt it still run? So, what we do using RosAsm, is that instead of deviding the source into seperate _files_, we devide it, in something called titles. Each title _may_ be saved away in a file, by pressing CTRL+S, and this file may be transfered between the team, just as a unit.pas file in Delphi or a .c file in C. Now by giving each team player a copy of the PE file, that contains the entire source, and a TITLE for which he has responsibility, he can develop the title and when he is ready, he send the title, saved away in its own file, to the maintainer (Project manager). The manager simply recouples the title with the full PE on his side, that may have updates from other teammebers. If some link is needed between the main source and the new title, this is added. This would be analogous to you receiving a unit.pas file, with a new object or class, or a range of new procedures to call. In the mainsource, you need to create the new object and make calls to it, or to somehow call the new procedures in the new unit. There is nothing diffrent here, it just is _done_ slightly diffrent.


A
good tool like RosAsm will help a lot.

Ha!
If RosAsm is such a great tool, why aren't more teams using it?

I do not know how many "teams" are using it.

But surely it will not help a lot
at solving the problems the wrong way.

So please tell us, what is the right way?

There is no _one_ right way.

(But there are wrong once. HLA for instance).

RosAsm has allready been subject to
team efforts. Ludvig made the debugger. That is an awsome debugger.

You really don't understand what team development is all about, do
you?
The fact that RosAsm contains some *independent* modules that Rene has
taken the pain to integrate into the IDE system doesn't mean much. If
it were a *true* team development tool, there wouldn't be "one point
of contact" that is responsible for merging code into the system. With
a real team development system, you have many tens of programmers each
working on their own copy of the system, each doing their own merges,
and so on.

And how do I as teamplayer1 make use of your (Teamplayer2)'s newly created codescanner, if I dont know about it clown? If you have people updating a project without notifying other key teamplayers, or the project manager, you have nothing but an intolerable kaos. You have a system where nobody knows for sure what is inside. In other words a system with no security whatsoever.

Let me give you an example project that most people can appreciate. At
Blizzard Entertainment, the WoW team consists of between 35 and 60
team members (programmers and artists) who are constantly modify code
and art assets in the game. The project contains, literally, millions
of lines of code and data objects. Though the team has a couple of
leads and assitant leads who know a lot about the system, it is *far*
too big for one person to manage all the code merging. The individual
programmers have to assume that responsibility. On a daily basis. Each
individual programmer needs to check out a full copy of the source
code that they can build on their own machine (or on a "build machine"
cluster), make their changes, test their changes, and then merge their
code back into the main branch *at the same time 10-20 other
programmers and artists are doing exactly the same thing*.

Do you really belive you could add a bunch of networking apis, and or rewrite the way it works or is suppposed to work, without telling somebody? Nobody can add code anonymously without prior detailed planning and agreements between teammembers.

Feel free to explain how having a *single* source file is going to
make this project more productive.

It would be rather easy, given that all the "interfaces" was allready planned, and all that was left was to write the code, to automat the updateing of the monosource. It could be emailed directly into the project for instance. This could be fully automated. A single machine, could do the builds as the new title came into the mail, read the new code from mail to GameAI@xxxxxxxxxxx, exchange it with the TITLE allready there, and do a new build at some set time that day. If the build fails, the various programmers receive feedback of the failure, and the process is repeated the next day.

Oh, and don't forget that this single source file is going to contain
millions of lines of code.

You do not know any app that contains million of lines of code.
You know maybe a "project", with many modules, that sum total contains that many lines of code. Windows for instance. But no single dll or exe or ocx or drv or vdx, or vmd file or whatever contains millions of lines of code.

And before you trumpet out some story about "TITLE", be aware of the
fact that WoW contains something like 160,000 *different* files that
have to be compiled together to produce the game. How many tabs do you
think you can fit on your screen displaying all those "titles"?

Please provide evidence of a single module with that many sourcefiles.

Yeah, I'll bet Blizzard Entertainment is just *dying* to switch over
to RosAsm.

When people can become as useless stupid and arrogant at the same time, as you, I would no longer be surpriced at anything. But a similar team, of similar size, similar talent, using only RosAsm, as the programming tool, would eat blizzard for lunch.

Try picking up a book on software engineering some time.

Maybe good for flexing a muscle or two. But yea, no thanks. I _have_
beeing reading theese toilett papers, and what I have gathers so far is
that the composition of a project is determined by the requirements of the
project, the various facts, and not by some preexisting philosophy. When I
do OOA in asm, this is not because I want to claim this is the only one
way. I am just showing how simple it can be done in asm. It can be made
even simpler. But we do not need this kind of thing in asm. It add
overhead there is no reason to have. The flexibility of asm can create how
many such "ways" as we want.

IOW, what you're saying is that rather than doing good old fashioned
software engineering, you'd rather hack away at the code. Settle for
the instant gratification rather than do things that have been shown
to produce far more productivity in the long run.

What I choose to do or not, is irrelevant to this debate.

Oh well, keep on hacking.

keep on bloating HLA beyond belief. Better luck the next 10 years.

>> > It's fine for tiny projects with one hacker working on the code; it
>> > completely fails for just about any other development model.

>> Another empty claim.

> Try picking up a book on software engineering some time.

Is this you argument?

Is "Another empty claim" your argument?

Can you read what is 4 lines above? "appeal to authority".

"Try picking up a book on software engineering "??
Is this the gist of your argument?

Is "Another empty claim" the gist of your argument?

It is not for me to back your claims, ***. "appeal to authority". for the n't time.

>> I said : At THE END of the devs. I am not even halfway done.
> I
> suspect when that day actually arrives, you'll discover that it takes
> a *lot* more time than an hour to clean up the mess you've made.

Even a day would justify it completly. Even 3 days.

When that day comes, I suspect you'll decide that it's better just to
rewrite the project(s) from scratch. That's what happens with most
projects that are developed the way you're going about things.

Like you are doing with HLA ?
Why dont you consentrate on fixing your own *** first?

>> > And once again, though you *might* be able to make this claim for a
>> > tiny project that is never worked on by more than a single hacker, it
>> > completely misses the mark for large projects involving teams of
>> > programmers.

>> Basesless claim.

> Pick up any book on software engineering.

HLAFucker! HLAFucker! HLAFucker! HLAFucker!

That's the best response you can come up with?
You're losing it again.

What response can you expect after repeating several times that:
"Pick up any book on software engineering" ?
This is "appeal to authority". And Baseless.


> You've never worked on a real team project, have you?

HLAFucker!

Glad to see that I've gotten to you.

So you openly admit that was the point of your post?
Is that the point of all the 1000s of posts you have posted here since 10 years`?
To "get" at someone? So you admit that you are just a Troll then?
Because they all have been exactly like your last posts.

> That's why it's important to learn how to
> write *good* code -- because someone else is going to have to look at
> your mess and deal with it sooner or later. This is something you've,
> apparently, never figured out.

Something you seem to not understand is that the overhead comming with
structured programming is hurting the eyes over some level even in
languages like Delphi.

Yet the software you seem to produce is just as bloated as the VCL
code, and for no good reason. At least the VCL is bloated because it's
including lots of functionality (that, granted, you might not be
using). Your code is bloated just because of the "cut & paste" that
you do.

:D

You might want to pick up a *specific* book on software engineering:
"The Pragmatic Programmer" This is a highly revered book and you can
learn a lot from it. In particular, it will explain why "cut & paste"
is such a bad idea.

I be sure not to read it if recommended by you.

hLater,
Randy Hyde


.

Quantcast