Re: Significant Pure Assembler Application In MASM ?

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 21:40:40 +0200, santosh <santosh.k83@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

//\\\\o//\\\\annabee wrote:

[that visually attractive s/w is more successfull]

How else would _you_ explain the incredible success of windows?

It was a combination of circumstances and clever marketing by MS. When
Windows 95 came out, there was no real graphical OS for the PC. Linux
and BSD were still in their early development and other UNIXes where
targeted towards minicomputers and mainframes.

A _significant_ part of this "markeding" is based in nothing but good looks.
You cannot even have a successful markeding campain for a product that doesnt look good.
A GPL project should also shine. Why not? Why should not first time users be attracted also by the look of a GPL program? (and enduser app). Who do you people think spread the rumors about applications? Travel by the invisible light and love? Or Martha sitting on _MSN_ talking to Olga? :D MSN has such an aswome look it virtually rape the field of chatting in the "flat-enduser-area". Even if it is stacked with commersials, and that you can download a mod, and kill all the ***, enduser never see any need for this.

I can tell you a story. A propper look of an application can change an enduser from totally uninteressted into _serious_ interesst. It may as well mean the diffrence between looking and _not_ looking at _all_. If we want GPL software to spread, it must for sure use all the tricks of commersial software, and do it better. Saying that this isn't true is like saying that GPL software is not for users, and that is saying it does not need to exist. Theres allways cases where you find a counter example. You say Rosasm. But Rosasm is a fantastic programming tool. So why not more young heads use it? Yes Markeding! Illusion selling. Well, we cant afford markedting can we? So what can we do instead? We can at least easily make our apps look stunning, and get free marketing this way. Of course, it still has to work, first. I am not saying it should look good and not work. I am saying, when it works, it should also be made to look good. Saying that looks does not affect smart people, well, there no reason to belive it does not. This is simply an arroganzy. A perfect example of "Elitist" views.

Also keep in mind that much of commercial s/w development and computer
usage, especially by lay people took place first in the USA and parts
of Europe and only later on, percolated to the rest of the world. It so
happens that the USA is "home territory" for Microsoft, so that fact
enabled them to market their OS intensively, especially towards their
target audience who didn't really know squat about computers,
programming, and the existence of technically superior, if academic,
alternatives.

Of course by the time Linux was competitive enough, Windows had already
achieved a suffocating monopoly on PCs.

If anyone is to blame for this, it's Europe. Technically and
scientifically Europe was, and is, close enough to the USA. Why did no
one in Europe produce an alternative to Windows? Europe was the
birthplace of modern science, but I'm surprised that they are not
competing, (friendly), with the USA, but rather, meekly
getting "assimilated" with it?

I have asked this question many many times. I do not know. Seems also extremly strange to me. First of course, writing an OS like windows is _not_ a simple task. Its more like a miracle they wore able todo it at all, quite frankly. Anyway, Linux _must_ get good at selling itself. It should have an _working_ installer for windows first, able to do the entire install, so simple that anyone can do it. Even "olga". I tried the MenuOS installer, both crashed here. So I am not going to test an os, which comes with a crashy installer. I do not have enough machines. I mainly have just one working PC here now. I tried Ubunty. An ok _beginning_. I will soon try it again. Sooner or later, maybe I move to it. But I am not moving permanently until it as least as stable as NT, and as easy to configure and setup. We ALLREADY had all those pains in theese years and years with windows. I am not going todo that again. It is ONLY fun the first time, and the fun went away with OS crash number 100001, back in 1995.

The only place in the world that could have produced an alternative to
Windows when the latter appeared was Europe. Unfortunately it didn't,
and we had wait several more years for volunteer based Linux to grow
and mature.

I believe that Betov should do more work on the RosAsm _language_
rather than it's current implementation. If the language becomes
attractive enough someone will implement it into the current
implementation or produce a new one.

I think the RosAsm lanuage is the best there is.

I'm talking about improvements. The _only_ way to attract developers is
to create a language that people want to use. If the language is good
enough an implementation is bound to be written sooner or later.

RosAsm is a genious "language" that you can build your own language on top of.
I do not understand a thing. How can it be improved? It can be _completed_ thats all.

It's a fact that for some reason, or reasons, most assembler programmers
are preferring languages like NASM, FASM, MASM, etc., to RosAsm. The
RosAsm community must find out the reasons for this, (no, simply
dismissing users of other assemblers as "not assembly programmers"
doesn't count), and try to compete technically with these languages.

there is one thing RosAsm could maybe have, that is "Language skins". Selectable from a menu. For an assembler this should not be too hard to implement. In that case, it could even have a config for Herberts style.

You are basically wrong in thinking NASM has better syntax then RosAsm. It is close, but RosAsm is closer to the better one. And RosAsm naturally allows for far faster devs, and for easy structuring the large sources.

RosAsm could, and imo _should_ be able to provide an editor for HEX, (at least a listing in hex) and all other x86-32-64 variants of syntaxes. If I ever would write or rewrite an assembler I would write its encoder in a way that this would be easy. Eg : Likly Less spesific. René could implement this when he rewrites for 64bit. If he doesnt do it, then maybe Wolfgang could step up to the plate. Much better for him, who has all this experience, and could do such a thing in a few weeks, or a few months whereas I could take years maybe at doing such a task, for which I have absolutly no competanse and would need to learn all the stuff from allmost square one. Much better that it is written by an experienced programmer. And here Wolfgang seems to me an obvious choise if not Betov himself wants todo it.

Somehow. It _will_ be done. It will take much longer if I must do it.

.