The War On HLA
Pete
If the HLA version of AoA had been out a couple of years ago when I first
started trying to learn assembly, I honestly believe I would not be here
today still bothering with asm.
As it turned out, I read the DOS version, and to this day I still recommend
this version to others who want to learn. What I do not recommend is HLA,
for the below reasons.
Why, when trying to teach people one language, does Randy double the work a
student has to do, and make them learn 2 languages! It is absurd, and adds a
lot of confusion. I came across HLA not long after I had started learning
asm, I found AS A STUDENT, it confused the hell out of me and threatened the
clarity I was trying to achieve through reading good asm books and
tutorials.
HLA, IMO, makes learning asm harder. And as Randy makes it clear that the
whole purpose of HLA is to help people to learn asm, HLA IS THE THING THAT
SHOULD NOT BE. It contradicts its reason for existence!
This is clearly the issue: does HLA help people learn asm? If you agree with
me that it does not, and indeed does the opposite, then you must surely
agree that HLA is therefore a bad thing, as it betrays its purpose.
No-one can deny that this is the main issue. Perhaps the following quote
provides an explanation:
"Typically as humans acquire expertise in a particular domain they become
progressively _less_ rather than more able to articulate their knowledge." -
Machines And Thought, The Legacy of Alan Turing Vol 1
I am not trying to make enemies here, just expressing my thoughts and views
on this issue.
I have supported AoA for quite a while, but now there is a lessening degree
of separation between AoA and HLA, I am not sure I will be able to support
it in future.
Pete
Alex McDonald
news:bl2398$77d$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> Why, when trying to teach people one language, does Randy double the work
a
> student has to do, and make them learn 2 languages! It is absurd, and adds
a
> lot of confusion. I came across HLA not long after I had started learning
> asm, I found AS A STUDENT, it confused the hell out of me and threatened
the
> clarity I was trying to achieve through reading good asm books and
> tutorials.
>
> HLA, IMO, makes learning asm harder. And as Randy makes it clear that the
> whole purpose of HLA is to help people to learn asm, HLA IS THE THING THAT
> SHOULD NOT BE. It contradicts its reason for existence!
> This is clearly the issue: does HLA help people learn asm? If you agree
with
> me that it does not, and indeed does the opposite, then you must surely
> agree that HLA is therefore a bad thing, as it betrays its purpose.
This is an odd and quite peculiar argument. "I must learn French"; very
well, live in France, immerse yourself in the language, speak nothing but
French. But then many learn to speak French outside France by receiving
tuition in English, until their French suffices to a degree of
understanding. This does not contradict the reason for the existence of
English.
Your "if ... therefore" logic is also quite flawed; it is no more than your
opinion dressed up. By the way, which of the several dialects of ASM do you
believe the HLA dialect hinders you learning?
>
> No-one can deny that this is the main issue. Perhaps the following quote
> provides an explanation:
>
> "Typically as humans acquire expertise in a particular domain they become
> progressively _less_ rather than more able to articulate their
knowledge." -
> Machines And Thought, The Legacy of Alan Turing Vol 1
I don't agree. Turing argues there on specifically the _articulation_ of
knowledge, not its use in action. To quote Feigenbaum (winner of the '94
Turing award): "It took more than 10 years of additional experiments [...]
to establish empirically that the means for intelligent action was primarily
_knowledge_ [original emphasis], and in most practical situations domain
specific knowledge."
Learn on; stretch your brain a little more. You'll benefit, even if you're
unable to articulate why.
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
Pete
"Alex McDonald" <alex...@btopenworld.com.ns> wrote in message
news:bl26s5$6f9$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> This is an odd and quite peculiar argument. "I must learn French"; very
> well, live in France, immerse yourself in the language, speak nothing but
> French. But then many learn to speak French outside France by receiving
> tuition in English, until their French suffices to a degree of
> understanding. This does not contradict the reason for the existence of
> English.
You wouldn't learn English just so you could learn French. If you want to
learn a language, you don't learn a different one first!
I think I have just shot you down there :)
> Your "if ... therefore" logic is also quite flawed; it is no more than
your
> opinion dressed up. By the way, which of the several dialects of ASM do
you
> believe the HLA dialect hinders you learning?
Yes it is my opinion, it is my opinion based on my own personal experience
of learning asm from scratch. It is me looking intelligently and getting to
the core of HLA ie its purpose, its reason for being. Can you not see that
if if hinders rather than helps you learn asm then it is failing its
purpose? i am not saying that that is the case for everyone, but i imagine i
am not totally alone on this.
I am trying to stay specific here, and just go on a rant. I have nothing
against Randy, or indeed anyone else. Can you not see my point? It's fine if
you disagree, as long as you can see where I am coming from. I fail to see
how my 'logic is flawed'.
> > "Typically as humans acquire expertise in a particular domain they
become
> > progressively _less_ rather than more able to articulate their
> knowledge." -
> > Machines And Thought, The Legacy of Alan Turing Vol 1
>
> I don't agree. Turing argues there on specifically the _articulation_ of
> knowledge, not its use in action. To quote Feigenbaum (winner of the '94
> Turing award): "It took more than 10 years of additional experiments [...]
> to establish empirically that the means for intelligent action was
primarily
> _knowledge_ [original emphasis], and in most practical situations domain
> specific knowledge."
Is teaching not the articulation of knowledge? (btw your quote is not at all
relevant)
My point, or rather suggestion, was that perhaps Randy has become too
knowledgeable about asm, that there is a greater gap between him (and indeed
all you other knowledgeable people in here : ) and people who are new to
asm.
That I think, is roughly the jist of that quote. Have you ever started
learning something, say reading a book on physics or something, and
explained it someone within a couple of days of reading it. If you then go
on to study the subject in depth, then it is harder to relate that initial
knowledge, because you yourself are then seeing the subject from a different
perspective.
I wish I could explain it better than that; I am convinced that there is a
lot of truth in it. I have actually started teaching piano again recently,
so I am not blindly throwing stones at the teaching profession here, and I
dont think the issue is black and white. Essentially, I think teaching is
about relating to people. More specifically, it is about relating to their
knowledge - seeing things from their point of view, seeing things as if you
had their knowledge. And the more you know about a subject, it is perhaps
harder to relate to someone who knows nothing about it. Being a good
teacher, I think, depends on your ability at this.
Now there is no need to simply argue with me. Please try and understand what
I have said. I know many will disagree, but perhaps we could have more of a
debate rather than just making fun of each other :)
Pete
sinewave
try each assembler and then use whatever suits you.
regards,
phil
Pete
that is what i'm doing. HLA doesnt suit me; i am not here to put other ppl
off it tho, i am just giving my point of view. i want ppl to do the same,
there is a lot to consider tho. not just technical needs, there is political
things, and many other issues to be considered.
nasm is so far my favourite so far, as it does everything i want, is a
continuing project, runs on the platforms i need, and is open source. tasm i
believe is no longer supported, and anyway it is commercial. masm, i am
against for similar reasons. Although I use linux, i need something that
runs on windows. Please tell me if there is an assembler which i have not
yet tried. I am playing around with RosAsm at the moment and so far I quite
like it. I am not yet decided on whether there should be separation and
choice between IDE and assembler. I am planning to start writing a text
editor for asm/html/perl/etc coding, from which you will be able to
compile/assemble using whatever tool you want. I would appreciate any
ideas/requests for this, from an asm programmer point of view. Or if a
similar, perfect tool already exists then tell me about it, and i can spend
my time doing something more beneficial.
Choosing an assembler, i know has been discussed a few times here. but most
ppl tend to ignore a lot of the issues. masm, so they say, is the most
popular (how they know this i would like to know), but that should not be a
real reason to use it. yes it may be popular for some good technical
reasons, but i dont think that it is technically superior to nasm, tasm etc.
Has anyone actually managed to click from microsoft.com to a direct download
of masm? No, and what does that tell you? I know you can dl ms DDK, but even
that seems very well hidden. M$ do not seem keen for ppl to program at a low
level. M$ want everyone to point and click. What annoys me is that sun, ibm,
the linux crew, etc, ie
100 NOT FUTURE,MICROSOFT
are obsessed with C and Java, and programming wise seem to be following a
similar direction to microsoft. My biggest m$ annoyance is that they promote
a massive separation between not only user and what is actually happening,
but also programmer and what is actually happening (vb anyone?). So
everything becomes abstract concepts, and when things go wrong, even the
programmer is confused. The reason i got into asm is because i want to
understand, i want to know how computers really work at a low level. From
this point of view, m$ do not care about me. From this point of view, they
are my enemy.
Pete
"sinewave" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:oprv4qh3...@10.0.0.1...
Pete
"Alex McDonald" <alex...@btopenworld.com.ns> wrote in message
news:bl26s5$6f9$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> well, live in France, immerse yourself in the language, speak nothing but
> French. But then many learn to speak French outside France by receiving
> tuition in English, until their French suffices to a degree of
> understanding. This does not contradict the reason for the existence of
> English.
You wouldn't learn English just so you could learn French. If you want to
learn a language, you don't learn a different one first!
I think I have just shot you down there :)
> Your "if ... therefore" logic is also quite flawed; it is no more than
your
> opinion dressed up. By the way, which of the several dialects of ASM do
you
> believe the HLA dialect hinders you learning?
Yes it is my opinion, it is my opinion based on my own personal experience
of learning asm from scratch. It is me looking intelligently and getting to
the core of HLA ie its purpose, its reason for being. Can you not see that
if if hinders rather than helps you learn asm then it is failing its
purpose? i am not saying that that is the case for everyone, but i imagine i
am not totally alone on this.
I am trying to stay specific here, and just go on a rant. I have nothing
against Randy, or indeed anyone else. Can you not see my point? It's fine if
you disagree, as long as you can see where I am coming from. I fail to see
how my 'logic is flawed'.
> > "Typically as humans acquire expertise in a particular domain they
become
> > progressively _less_ rather than more able to articulate their
> knowledge." -
> > Machines And Thought, The Legacy of Alan Turing Vol 1
>
> I don't agree. Turing argues there on specifically the _articulation_ of
> knowledge, not its use in action. To quote Feigenbaum (winner of the '94
> Turing award): "It took more than 10 years of additional experiments [...]
> to establish empirically that the means for intelligent action was
primarily
> _knowledge_ [original emphasis], and in most practical situations domain
> specific knowledge."
Is teaching not the articulation of knowledge? (btw your quote is not at all
Pete
"Pete" <no...@i-see-a-little-siloutte-of-a.man> wrote in message
> I am trying to stay specific here, and just go on a rant.
lol, that was supposed to be:
"I am trying to stay specific here, and NOT just go on a rant."
Randall Hyde
"Pete" <no...@i-see-a-little-siloutte-of-a.man> wrote in message news:bl2398$77d$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> I have finally reached an opinion on HLA. Sorry, Randy...........
No need to be sorry. You are just as welcome to your opinion as I am to mine.
>
> If the HLA version of AoA had been out a couple of years ago when I first
> started trying to learn assembly, I honestly believe I would not be here
> today still bothering with asm.
> As it turned out, I read the DOS version, and to this day I still recommend
> this version to others who want to learn. What I do not recommend is HLA,
> for the below reasons.
>
> Why, when trying to teach people one language, does Randy double the work a
> student has to do, and make them learn 2 languages!
Mistake number one.
They don't *learn* two languages. Instead, they use their existing knowledge
of C/C++, Java, or Pascal to learn assembly. True, HLA's HLL-like control
structures are not *exactly* like these other languages, but they are sufficiently
close that students readily pick them up with only a few hour's study. That's
*far* faster than having to figure out the cmp/jcc paradigm.
More later...
> It is absurd, and adds a
> lot of confusion. I came across HLA not long after I had started learning
> asm, I found AS A STUDENT, it confused the hell out of me and threatened the
> clarity I was trying to achieve through reading good asm books and
> tutorials.
No one paradigm is perfect for everyone. However, as you were reading other
ASM books at the same time or prior to learning HLA, I can certainly understand
your confusion. You don't learn learn HLL programming by reading books on
Java, Pascal, C, C++, and Ada while you're trying to learn VB. HLA is definitely
a different language than MASM; as are NASM, FASM, GoASM, SpASM, A386,
etc. Read a manual for MASM while you're trying to learn Gas and you'll have
the same confusion. The problem was your pedagogical methods, not HLA (or
any other assembler for that matter).
> HLA, IMO, makes learning asm harder.
HLA isn't going to be perfect for everyone. And if you're trying to learn
other assembly languages concurrently, I can understand why you would find
HLA harder to learn. The real problem is not that you were trying to learn
"two languages at once", but rather that you were trying to learn several
different languages at once and you thought they were all the same. It is
no wonder you were confused.
> And as Randy makes it clear that the
> whole purpose of HLA is to help people to learn asm, HLA IS THE THING THAT
> SHOULD NOT BE. It contradicts its reason for existence!
It shouldn't be a tool for helping people learn assembler?
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here.
> This is clearly the issue: does HLA help people learn asm? If you agree with
> me that it does not, and indeed does the opposite, then you must surely
> agree that HLA is therefore a bad thing, as it betrays its purpose.
Classroom experience shows that it does help people learn assembly.
Students who took the HLA course got much farther along than those
who took the MASM-based course. There will always be a couple of
exceptions here and there, and perhaps you are one of those exceptions,
but by and larger HLA has been extremely successful in the classroom.
Your personal experiences are a statistical sample of one. Not a good
piece of evidence upon which to base a statement like this.
> No-one can deny that this is the main issue. Perhaps the following quote
> provides an explanation:
>
> "Typically as humans acquire expertise in a particular domain they become
> progressively _less_ rather than more able to articulate their knowledge." -
> Machines And Thought, The Legacy of Alan Turing Vol 1
I agree 100%.
That's why it's important to note that the "Art of Assembly" has had over
a decade of classroom testing and refinement. HLA has gone through
similar refinement (though clearly not as long). Are you suggesting that
people don't think AoA is easy to read and understand? Heck, I get
emails every day praising the (32-bit) work. Yep, I get hate mail now
and then; but the stuff personally sent to me outnumbers the hate mail
by about 250:1.
Now in the newsgroups (such as this one), it is a completely different
matter. However, most people complaining about HLA already know
an assembly language. It's pretty obvious to anyone who knows the
first thing about human nature that they're not going to like HLA
(human nature suggests that people want to stick with the things
that are most comfortable to them; HLA is *not* comfortable to
a die-hard MASM programmer). But once you remove the
prejuidice of already knowing an assembly language, HLA does
*very* well with people.
> I am not trying to make enemies here, just expressing my thoughts and views
> on this issue.
Again, you're welcome to your views and I encourage true dialog (i.e.,
don't fall into the Betov/The_Sage trap).
> I have supported AoA for quite a while, but now there is a lessening degree
> of separation between AoA and HLA, I am not sure I will be able to support
> it in future.
AoA/16-bit is obsolete and has been for over a decade. For that reason
I cannot support it. It will remain around forever (even if *I* removed it
from Webster, there are so many copies floating around that it could never
be eradicated). However, the *vast* majority of newcomers to assembly
language are going with the 32-bit edition (that uses HLA). With the published
edition just hitting the bookstores right now, that percentage is only going to
increase. You can choose not to "support" it, that's certainly your
choice (and you won't be the only one who has made that choice, by any
stretch of the imagination), but given that AoA is the first new published work
on assembly language in several years, I think you're going to find it takes
on a big spike in popularity over the next year. Not that I don't appreciate
your past support, but the truth is there is a whole new generation of
assembly language programmers coming on-line now and I'm looking to
them to "support" AoA/32-bits and HLA. I'm not really expecting much
support from the "pre-HLA/pre-AoA" crowd. I gave up on that fantasy
shortly after I released HLA and saw the reaction existing assembly
programmers had to the language.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Randall Hyde
"Randall Hyde" <rand...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Zs6db.5697$NX3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> I agree 100%.
> That's why it's important to note that the "Art of Assembly" has had over
> a decade of classroom testing and refinement. HLA has gone through
> similar refinement (though clearly not as long). Are you suggesting that
> people don't think AoA is easy to read and understand? Heck, I get
> emails every day praising the (32-bit) work. Yep, I get hate mail now
> and then; but the stuff personally sent to me outnumbers the hate mail
> by about 250:1.
>
Right after I got done posting the above, I found the following email
sitting in my inbox:
>>>>>>>>>
Just want to say Thanks!! for creating HLA and AoA.
I'm a CS major at the Univ. of Hawaii @ Manoa taking Assmembly for the first time.
HLA has helped me very much in learning assembly.
<<<<<<<<<<
I probably get four or five of these emails every week.
As I said, HLA isn't perfect for everyone; but a lot of beginners have
many kind things to say about it.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Artista1214
book. I would've probably picked it up thinking it would help me. I started my
programming experience by reading QBasic and then moving to a C programming. I
can see where people coming from a HLL would see HLA a good place to start. Its
pretty close to C/C++/Java syntax or close enough to matter. Now after I had
picked up a book on Asm I find that making the transition over to HLA
confusing. It would be taking the round about way to learning asm, in my view.
Once someone has a set way of thinking its very difficult to change it.
However, for someone who wants to learn asm. It would be be a good place to
start. I would recommend it to them. The effectiveness of HLA really depends on
a person's background in programming.
-Crim in disguise
sinewave
> Please tell me if there is an assembler which i have not
> yet tried.
http://flatassembler.net/ <--- FASM [very nice]
http://www.godevtool.com/ <--- GoAsm
> I am planning to start writing a text editor for asm/html/perl
> /etc coding, from which you will be able to compile/assemble
> using whatever tool you want.
similar tools do exist: UltraEdit, Crimson Editor, etc...
> masm, so they say, is the most popular (how they know this i
> would like to know), but that should not be a real reason to use it.
AFAIK MASM is the most popular and one of the most advanced. then again it
has been out since 1981. i agree that it being popular is no reason for
usage... so go download all of them and take your pick. IMO Hutch's MASM32
package has sort of kicked MS in the balls by using their EULA against
them. FWIW RosAsm is a decent tool but since you are a Linux user why not
pick an assembler that will work under both.
> MICROSOFT are obsessed with C and Java
i would say that the industry and colleges are pushing Java, C++, C#, and
VB. as i am sure you know C++ and C are not the same language. very compact
and efficient programs can be produced using C if the programmer knows what
they are doing.... not difficult but it won't happen by osmosis.
> From this point of view, m$ do not care about me. From
> this point of view, they are my enemy.
well i hate to inform you Pete but there is a whole world out there who
does not care about you... or me. why make them all your enemy? i look at
them as friends. why? why not? don't give a sh*t enough to fight. stop
giving your "enemies" energy but dwelling on them. Gates is not worrying
about you.
regards,
phil
Betov
news:bl2398$77d$1...@sparta.btinternet.com:
> I have finally reached an opinion on HLA. Sorry, Randy...........
>
> [...]
>
> HLA, IMO, makes learning asm harder. And as Randy makes it clear that
> the whole purpose of HLA is to help people to learn asm, HLA IS THE
> THING THAT SHOULD NOT BE. It contradicts its reason for existence!
> This is clearly the issue: does HLA help people learn asm? If you agree
> with me that it does not, and indeed does the opposite, then you must
> surely agree that HLA is therefore a bad thing, as it betrays its
> purpose.
Evident. If one wants to understand _WHY?_, he also has to take
a look at the whole story, and at Master Pdf real motivations.
He said by himself, right here, in the past, that, he made up
his mind very quickly that _no_ Assembly Programmer would ever
give HLA a try. And he did not made a secret thing that, not
being able to address Asm Programmers, he would address, instead,
... beginners.
This fact also explains his very strange statement about HLA
being devoted to AoA32 instead of the reverse. :)) :)) :))
... and, as long as you refer to RosAsm in one of your posts,
though i never wrote RosAsm as a "teaching" Tool, but, instead,
as a Tool for Real-Life Applications building, i am quite
sure that RosAsm would be a much better friend to beginners
than any HLA. No crazy install, no buggy procedures for
compilation -see, for example, this last one at HLA Board, not
compiling a File named "Test" :)) :)) :)), Click&Go interface,
clean and simple syntax, very high syntax flexibility,
evoluated and accurate errors Management pointing directely
into the Source, speed, security, and so on...
Two more points about HLA:
* Having choosen to reverse the usual syntax. was a deliberate
choice from Master Pdf. The purpose of this very strange choice
is nothing but locking the trapped beginners into HLA (as long
as they would even have some problems at reading Assembly Sources).
* The programming Methods pushed by Master Pdf are not the Assembly
ones and totaly defeat the purpose of Assembly. If you fully want
to fully understand what i mean with this, try, for example, to
extract a Function, like the Math translations ones, from HLA
lib Sources, and you will have the full picture of what should
never be done in Assembly, if you well understand that Assembly
is a Language that _shows_ (not a Language that _hides_).
(Compare to any of such Functions in RosAsm Clip File...).
> [...]
>
> I am not trying to make enemies here, just expressing my thoughts and
> views on this issue.
> I have supported AoA for quite a while, but now there is a lessening
> degree of separation between AoA and HLA, I am not sure I will be able
> to support it in future.
I don't know if you will be pleased with considering me your friend,
but you will at least be right considering me one less "enemy".
:)) :)) :))
Thanks anyway, for your post. In the beginning of my "rantings"
against HLA and Master Pdf, i was feeling quite isolated and
only got reactions saying i was "jalous", "clown", and the like.
I even received several Mails from guys saying to me that they
perfectely agread with my Posts, but would not contribute to
the discusion publicly, because they were afraid of the hard
fight.
I am glad these days, with seeing more and more participants
(not yet a lot, but better than nothing at all) no more affraid
to say the things as they are, with all the risks of unpleasant
things coming usually with this, on medias essentially occupied
by uncompetent and unhonest people, spending their time at
spaming their stupidities.
___________________________________________________________________
About your try of RosAsm and your remark about the IDE/Assembler
separation, this is one of the most frequent request i have had
since the very beginning of SpAsm.
All of my RosAsm work is based on two ideas:
* Specific PEs programming.
* Complete integration of all components and Tools.
Of course, this second point deprives the user of the possibility
of choosing, as you say, what Sources Editor he would prefer to
use.
My answer, in the past, with this, has always been to say that,
if some user wants something inside the Sources Editor that he
does not actually get, we simply have to implement it, if possible,
and that, in order to have such an integrated Editor pleasing most
(if not all...) users, we have simply to make it "perfect".
Actually, we are yet far from such a "perfect" achievement state.
Nevertheless, you have also to consider all of the advantages
coming with a Tool like this one, specifically written for Asm
Source Editing, and with its complete integration into the RAD.
I will not recall you all of the features of this Editor, but
i suppose you could feel pleased with having it branched
directely to the Macros Parser, for example, for viewing what
it does with some Macros Invocations, or to the errors Manager
for errors pointing, or pleased, with the Right-Click feature
saving so much of your Dev. Time, or with the evoluated Blocks
Indentation taking care of not touching the Labels, and so on...
Aren't you?
Many of these specific features would simply not be possible
(or, at leats terribly difficult to implement...) with an
independant Editor.
Now, for the guys really not wanting to be "forced" to such
an Editor, there are others, perfectely valid choices: NASM
and FASM are very good Assemblers. I never let go an occasion
of pushing to give also a serious try to these serious Tools.
;)
Betov.
< http://betov.free.fr/RosAsm.html >
T.M. Sommers
> I am planning to start writing a text
> editor for asm/html/perl/etc coding, from which you will be able to
> compile/assemble using whatever tool you want.
Emacs has already been written.
Seriously. It has a major mode for assembly, and can invoke compilers
and capture the output in a buffer.
Ed Beroset
> i would say that the industry and colleges are pushing Java, C++, C#,
> and VB. as i am sure you know C++ and C are not the same language. very
> compact and efficient programs can be produced using C if the programmer
> knows what they are doing.... not difficult but it won't happen by osmosis.
FYI, it's possible to create compact and efficient programs in C++ if
the programmer knows what he or she is doing, too. It's harder, but
certainly possible.
Ed
Alex McDonald
"Pete" <no...@i-see-a-little-siloutte-of-a.man> wrote in message
>
> "Alex McDonald" <alex...@btopenworld.com.ns> wrote in message
> news:bl26s5$6f9$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> > This is an odd and quite peculiar argument. "I must learn French"; very
> > well, live in France, immerse yourself in the language, speak nothing
but
> > French. But then many learn to speak French outside France by receiving
> > tuition in English, until their French suffices to a degree of
> > understanding. This does not contradict the reason for the existence of
> > English.
>
> You wouldn't learn English just so you could learn French. If you want to
> learn a language, you don't learn a different one first!
> I think I have just shot you down there :)
True; but your original point (which you cut) was that you felt learning HLA
confused you about learning ASM. If you are more comfortable with high level
languages, then learning assembler is, as I suggest, how you might learn
French by
using English; using what you know to explore what you don't. It doesn't
make HLA useless or (I quote you) "bad".
>
>
> > Your "if ... therefore" logic is also quite flawed; it is no more than
> your
> > opinion dressed up. By the way, which of the several dialects of ASM do
> you
> > believe the HLA dialect hinders you learning?
>
> Yes it is my opinion, it is my opinion based on my own personal experience
> of learning asm from scratch. It is me looking intelligently and getting
to
> the core of HLA ie its purpose, its reason for being. Can you not see that
> if if hinders rather than helps you learn asm then it is failing its
> purpose? i am not saying that that is the case for everyone, but i imagine
i
> am not totally alone on this.
> I am trying to stay specific here, and just go on a rant. I have nothing
> against Randy, or indeed anyone else. Can you not see my point? It's fine
if
> you disagree, as long as you can see where I am coming from. I fail to see
> how my 'logic is flawed'.
I see your statements, but I fail to see your points as constructive. You
stated them as a sequence of logical arguments,
and ended with "No-one can deny that this is the main issue". I do deny it,
and I reject your analysis entirely.
>
>
> > > "Typically as humans acquire expertise in a particular domain they
> become
> > > progressively _less_ rather than more able to articulate their
> > knowledge." -
> > > Machines And Thought, The Legacy of Alan Turing Vol 1
> >
> > I don't agree. Turing argues there on specifically the _articulation_ of
> > knowledge, not its use in action. To quote Feigenbaum (winner of the '94
> > Turing award): "It took more than 10 years of additional experiments
[...]
> > to establish empirically that the means for intelligent action was
> primarily
> > _knowledge_ [original emphasis], and in most practical situations domain
> > specific knowledge."
>
> Is teaching not the articulation of knowledge?
Yes.
>(btw your quote is not at all relevant)
> My point, or rather suggestion, was that perhaps Randy has become too
> knowledgeable about asm, that there is a greater gap between him (and
indeed
> all you other knowledgeable people in here : ) and people who are new to
> asm.
I thought your point was that you felt too much expertise (i.e. learning two
languages instead of one) hindered you, not that Randy's articulation of his
knowledge was hampered by his knowledge. Hence the quote.
> That I think, is roughly the jist of that quote. Have you ever started
> learning something, say reading a book on physics or something, and
> explained it someone within a couple of days of reading it. If you then go
> on to study the subject in depth, then it is harder to relate that initial
> knowledge, because you yourself are then seeing the subject from a
different
> perspective.
> I wish I could explain it better than that; I am convinced that there is a
> lot of truth in it. I have actually started teaching piano again recently,
> so I am not blindly throwing stones at the teaching profession here, and I
> dont think the issue is black and white. Essentially, I think teaching is
> about relating to people. More specifically, it is about relating to their
> knowledge - seeing things from their point of view, seeing things as if
you
> had their knowledge. And the more you know about a subject, it is perhaps
> harder to relate to someone who knows nothing about it. Being a good
> teacher, I think, depends on your ability at this.
Teaching is about imparting useful knowledge. Relating to people while
you're doing it is nice; but it doesn't cut it in my book if you're nicely
incapable of doing so. There are some subjects that it is best not to learn
from scratch if you don't have some fundamental understanding of the
subject. If you've found learning ASM difficult, and found that HLA served
to confuse, then perhaps it would be better to work out -- what is it I
don't know that makes this so difficult? For example, is it the idea of a
byte? word? dword? pointer? Binary arithmetic, signed and unsigned? And, or,
xor? Condition codes and flags? Looping? Lists? None of these concepts are
unique to assembler, yet they are the essential building blocks. Starting
with Chopin you know to be the wrong approach to teaching the piano. A B C
first, octaves, staves, all the mechanics of reading music are the building
blocks. You don't need a piano for that.
This problem is not unique when coming to assembler (or any low level or
novel language for that matter). There are new concepts, new words, syntax &
vocabularies, apart from the basics I've mentioned above. Levels of
knowledge vary greatly. But if there's one thing I've learned (as opposed to
being taught) it's that diversity of description helped me greatly. A single
assembler, tutor, book, or course would leave poorer of understanding. I
would recommend diversity in your learning.
Your subtext is that Randy has done you a disservice, and by implication
done others a disservice too. Perhaps he assumes, as we all do from time to
time, that you have the basics. If you don't, get them first; and then
learning assembler from any and many sources will be a pleasure for you. And
be grateful it's free; I'm sure your piano lessons aren't. Randy does what
he does for motives I won't guess at, but the end result is that he is
adding to, not subtracting from, the sum of understanding of many
programmers. You say it's just your opinion; I say you (and others) do him a
disservice with this line of wholly negative argument.
>
> Now there is no need to simply argue with me.
I'm sorry; I mistook my original reply as a reasoned argument against what I
still see as a narrow approach to learning, and possibly a narrow approach
to teaching too.
> Please try and understand what
> I have said. I know many will disagree, but perhaps we could have more of
> a debate rather than just making fun of each other :)
Debate without argument isn't dialogue, it's monologue. You may find it
easier to avoid words like "bad", "war", "enemies" and other emotive terms,
and over-generalising your arguments with statements like "No-one can deny".
And you'll get a better quality of debate if you say something positive.
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
drhowarddrfinedrhoward
that it depends on where you're coming from; your perspective.
Originally I was a hardware designer. Asm makes perfect sense to me but it
took a long time for me to understand C/C++ and other languages. So I can
imagine what it's like for HLL programmers to learn asm.
On the other hand, I read here where some who know asm decide to pick up AoA
to learn HLA and that makes no sense to me at all. I think Randy would
agree, also.
If you don't know any HLL and are not a hardware guy, I'm not sure AoA is
the place to start but understanding the hardware is more important to study
first. Not necessarily volts and amps as much as how the registers and
memory, etc. all work together.
I do feel there should be a current AoA book just for asm and no HLA, and it
is sadly missed.
sinewave
> FYI, it's possible to create compact and efficient programs in C++ if the
> programmer knows what he or she is doing, too. It's harder, but certainly
> possible.
you are correct Ed. the problem is not the C++ language per se, it is third
party libraries or frameworks such as VCL or MFC... and exception handling.
regards,
phil
sinewave
Betov, freedom is Pete trying each and deciding. i use MASM. i use RosAsm.
i use FASM. i do no use HLA. Randy is not a "swindler", his opinion just
differs. spamming him makes you appear jealous, would you rather i lie?
your help file just draws attention to your competition.
regards,
phil
Randall Hyde
"Betov" <be...@free.fr> wrote in message news:Xns94036EC835...@213.228.0.33...
> "Pete" <no...@i-see-a-little-siloutte-of-a.man> wrote in
> news:bl2398$77d$1...@sparta.btinternet.com:
>
> a look at the whole story, and at Master Pdf real motivations.
Indeed, one must.
An assembler created by an instructor wishing to make the learning
experience more productive for his students.
> He said by himself, right here, in the past, that, he made up
> his mind very quickly that _no_ Assembly Programmer would ever
> give HLA a try. And he did not made a secret thing that, not
> being able to address Asm Programmers, he would address, instead,
> ... beginners.
Provide the URL where I said that (this is a gross misquote).
What I did say is that I very quickly discovered that *exsting* assembly
language programmers largely aren't interested in learning a new assembler.
As *you've* discovered, this includes RosASM/SpASM as well as HLA.
Let's look at the successes beyond MASM that have come along and
analyze why they were successful:
1. TASM - TASM was successful, obviously, because it was more or
less upwards compatible with MASM, was faster, and offered more features.
Also, Borland had a huge user base with Turbo Pascal and Turbo C, so
many Borland programmers went the TASM route out of loyalty.
2. NASM - NASM was successful for several reasons - a) it was the
first "free/open-source" assembler created at the height of the open-source
movement, b) it was portable to several operating systems, c) it was written in
C (so many programmers could participate in its design), d) it has been around
a while and has considerable support in terms of published books and
documenation (including Jeff Duntemann's very popular "Assembly: Step-
by-Step" book), and e) it offered a "simplified" view of x86 assembly that many
beginning programmers felt they needed.
3. FASM - FASM is to NASM what TASM was to MASM. It's faster,
has more features, while remaining syntactically very similar. Early on, many
NASM users defected to FASM, thus providing the critical mass it needed
to become popular.
4. GoASM - GoASM has achieved a modicum of popularity by providing
a complete development system (assembler, resource editor, linker, symbolic
debugger, editor, help compiler, etc.). Sorta like SpAsm/RosASM but without
all the hateful remarks about other products by its author.
5. HLA - HLA was designed to allow the creation of a 32-bit edition of
"The Art of Assembly". IOW, HLA was designed to help make learning
and using assembly language easier than every before. You're absolutely
right - I have made no secret that HLA targets...beginners, not existing
assembly language programmers. As your good buddy John Found said
"why would anyone buy a book on assembly language if they already
know assembly?" (there are some good reasons why, but it's still a good
question). Likewise, why would someone learn a new assembler if they
are already happy with the one they know?
>
> This fact also explains his very strange statement about HLA
> being devoted to AoA32 instead of the reverse. :)) :)) :))
Although the history of AoA and HLA is a matter of public
record, and has been explained to you many, many, times now,
you insist on dredging up this comment over and over again
(I'm not quite sure how this is a put-down of either HLA or
AoA, but you sure try to make it sound negative).
Anyway, what was that statement you keep using?
"Swindling?" As HLA's and AoA's history *has* been explained
to you, your continued use of this statement simply has to
be labelled an outright lie on your part. You know better.
You choose to deliberately misstate the facts to make your
point. Keep making this post, and I'll keep pointing out that
you're deliberately lying. If you've got a point to make elsewhere,
how do you expect people to take you seriously when your
posts are so full of documented lies? A word to the wise,
don't behave like "The_Sage". As little respect as many people
hold for you, they still hold you in higher esteem than *him*.
Yet constant lying is going to drop you down to that level.
>
> ... and, as long as you refer to RosAsm in one of your posts,
> though i never wrote RosAsm as a "teaching" Tool, but, instead,
> as a Tool for Real-Life Applications building, i am quite
> sure that RosAsm would be a much better friend to beginners
> than any HLA.
Yes, you've said as much in the past. At least, beginners who
can figure out everything on their own without bothering *you*
with any questions.
> No crazy install, no buggy procedures for
> compilation -see, for example, this last one at HLA Board, not
> compiling a File named "Test" :)) :)) :)), Click&Go interface,
> clean and simple syntax, very high syntax flexibility,
> evoluated and accurate errors Management pointing directely
> into the Source, speed, security, and so on...
Also notice how I take great pains to solve the user's problems.
I don't tell them to RTFM (even though 90% of the problems
could be solved that way).
As for buggy,....
Well, those who live in glass houses.... (shouldn't throw stones,
if you're not familiar with this idiom).
>
> Two more points about HLA:
>
> * Having choosen to reverse the usual syntax. was a deliberate
> choice from Master Pdf. The purpose of this very strange choice
> is nothing but locking the trapped beginners into HLA (as long
> as they would even have some problems at reading Assembly Sources).
So you're claiming that RosASM's syntax is somehow "standard"?
Sometime you can explain why you chose a non-standard syntax
for RosASM. There's a lot more to "standard" syntax than the order
of the operands. With the *possible* exception of MASM/TASM,
no two assemblers have compatible syntax. And RosASM's syntactical
differences are great. Only HLA and Gas could be considered more
different from the original Intel syntax. So as I said, "those who live in
glass houses..."
Now I'm sure you're going to defend your syntactical differences as
being "good". That's fair and I'll buy your arguments (what would be
the purpose of RosASM if it was a clone of MASM?). I've, likewise,
defended my choice (as, among other things, being better for beginners).
Do you honestly believe that someone who knows only RosASM is going
to find Gas, HLA, MASM, etc., easy to read and understand?
>
> * The programming Methods pushed by Master Pdf are not the Assembly
> ones and totaly defeat the purpose of Assembly. If you fully want
> to fully understand what i mean with this, try, for example, to
> extract a Function, like the Math translations ones, from HLA
> lib Sources, and you will have the full picture of what should
> never be done in Assembly, if you well understand that Assembly
> is a Language that _shows_ (not a Language that _hides_).
> (Compare to any of such Functions in RosAsm Clip File...).
Okay, I'll take you up on that.
I need a function that computes ln(x) and, for some reason I
don't want to simply call the standard library routine, I feel
compelled to "cut & paste" it into my own code. I've cut and
pasted it here just for you:
procedure math._ln; @nodisplay; @noframe;
begin _ln;
fld1();
fxch();
fyl2x(); // Compute 1*lg(x).
fldl2e(); // Load lg(e).
fdiv(); // Compute lg(x)/lg(10).
ret();
end _ln;
Gee, that didn't take very much effort (open the file,
select function with mouse, hit CTRL-C, open this
window back up, hit CTRL-V). What's your point?
Sure, the SpASM/RosASM editor has a nifty
feature for cutting and pasting code (but that's an
*editor* feature, not an assembly language feature
I might point out). Guess what? in HLA you don't have
to bother with this nonsense. Just stick the following
statement:
#include( "stdlib.hhf" )
at the beginning of your program and you immediately
have access to *all* the routines in the standard library.
You don't have to bother with the hassles of cutting and
pasting. It's all there for you to call.
As for the "hidden code" thing, boy, you've been reading
too many posts by "The_Sage". There is nothing hidden.
All the sources are there for programmers who feel they
need to create "specialized" routines rather than use the generic
code. As most *assembly* programmers don't feel the need
to do this, forcing them to "cut&paste" their way through
their coding is an injustice.
But as always when you get started down this route, I would
point out two things:
1. HLA allows the programmer to use the "cut&paste" paradigm
as well as the library paradigm.
2. RosASM only allows the "cut&paste" paradigm.
Guess which assembly language system is more flexible in this regard?
>
> Thanks anyway, for your post. In the beginning of my "rantings"
> against HLA and Master Pdf, i was feeling quite isolated and
> only got reactions saying i was "jalous", "clown", and the like.
That's not true at all.
In the beginning when you started knocking HLA you had a
*lot* of people agreeing with you that HLA was not something
they felt was "good assembly." However, the voracity of your
posts, insults, and bad manners have turned many people who
would otherwise support your arguments against you.
Try as we might around here, we cannot convince you to stop your silly
diatriabes against products like MASM, NASM, and HLA,
that enjoy a fair amount of success despite your best intentions
to the contrary.
I wish you the best of luck with your product, despite the many
misgivings I have about it. I hope that someday you will achieve
the success you so desparately want (and refuse to acknowledge
that you want). If it makes you feel any better, HLA is *not* for
everyone. It's not even the most suitable environment for *all*
beginners. But it's turning out to be *very* popular with the
audience for which it was created - beginning assembly language
programmers who already know some high level language. If you're
so concerned that HLA is going to corrupt the minds of innocent
young programmers, let me make a suggestion (I've made several
times in the past): stop fighting HLA and take advantage of its
growing popularity. Rather than writing your own version of
"Art of Assembly" that would make SpASM/RosASM popular,
try writing something like "RosASM for HLA programmers:
now learn *real* assembly" To be truthful, you're going to find
that very few MASM/FASM/GoASM/NASM/etc. users switch
over to SpASM/RosASM. They're already happy with their
assemblers (in general), why should they switch? Sure, you'll
attract the "I hate Microsoft at all costs" crowd who, nontheless,
feel they have to write code for Windows (using some lame excuse
like ReactOS). You also seem to be doing a good job of attracting
those who share your political and philosophical outlooks on life.
But if you really want to be the architect of this "assembly rebirth"
you keep talking about, you're not going to do it by simply
attacking all the other assemblers and their authors all the time.
All you're going to do is, in your own words, come off looking
like a jealous clown.
> I even received several Mails from guys saying to me that they
> perfectely agread with my Posts, but would not contribute to
> the discusion publicly, because they were afraid of the hard
> fight.
I'm sure you do.
Just as I get post all the time asking my why I put up with you
and don't just add you to my killfile.
> I am glad these days, with seeing more and more participants
> (not yet a lot, but better than nothing at all) no more affraid
> to say the things as they are, with all the risks of unpleasant
> things coming usually with this, on medias essentially occupied
> by uncompetent and unhonest people, spending their time at
> spaming their stupidities.
Rene, let me clue you in on one big secret that will make you
feel *very* good. Constant interaction with you probably does
more harm to my "reputation" than good. I could take the "high road"
and simply ignore you. But I'm hoping there is a small chance that
at some point you'll actually be redeemed. After the pounding you
took in the MASM Forum, it was encouraging to see that you've
come to the realization that your opinions are a bit out of step with
the rest of the world and that you've softened your stance a bit since
then. Ultimately, I hope that you learn that you can accomplish your
goals far more rapidly by being civil than by being insulting and constantly
attacking those you perceive to be competition. In my mind, this isn't
about "my friends and supporters" versus "your friends and supporters".
It really boils down to the hope that if your arguments get refuted often
enough, you'll finally realize the futility of it all and behave in a civilized
manner. You've gotten a whole lot better, but you still have a ways to
go.
>
>
> About your try of RosAsm and your remark about the IDE/Assembler
> separation, this is one of the most frequent request i have had
> since the very beginning of SpAsm.
And this is one area where I agree with *you*. Ignore the requests
and keep the IDE. That is, after all, the *biggest* advantage your system
has. Breaking the system apart (even as just an option) would eliminate
the major reason for considering RosASM.
> All of my RosAsm work is based on two ideas:
>
> * Specific PEs programming.
This point just raised an interesting question in my mind.
Why is it *not* okay for an assembler to include things like
"IFs" and "WHILEs" built-in to the assembler, that really
have nothing to do with "true" assembly language, but it's
okay for the assembler to contain PE-specific stuff. E.g.,
your CALL mechanism for Win32 API calls is definitely
built into your language, but it's not "true" assembly.
Does this mean that RosASM is not a true assembler?
If you're going to use that argument against MASM, TASM,
and HLA, why doesn't it likewise apply to RosASM?
I still think the "source in PE" file format is very interesting,
though I'm not completely sure of its utility (and if you continue
to insist that you can't do libraries because of this integration,
then I would argue that this is a very *negative* feature of
the PE-format; though I'm not at all convinced that you
cannot support libraries with your PE format).
> * Complete integration of all components and Tools.
Don't let anyone talk you out of this. Most of your effort is
in the RosASM *system*, not in the RosASM *assembly
language*. Break the assembler out as a separate tool and
RosASM loses much of what it has to offer (i.e., most other
assembly languages implemented by specific assemblers have
more language features).
>
> Of course, this second point deprives the user of the possibility
> of choosing, as you say, what Sources Editor he would prefer to
> use.
No, it doesn't. You provide the ability to extract source code that
can be edited by any other text editor. You provide the ability
to reload that text back into RosASM. It may not be convenient,
but it's possible to do this. People have to weigh the benefits of
using a separate editor (and good programming editors like
CodeWright *are* much better than RosASM's editor, no doubt)
versus living with the built-in editor. There are valid complaints about
the RosASM editor's user interface. But the best solution is to fix
the existing editor.
>
> My answer, in the past, with this, has always been to say that,
> if some user wants something inside the Sources Editor that he
> does not actually get, we simply have to implement it, if possible,
> and that, in order to have such an integrated Editor pleasing most
> (if not all...) users, we have simply to make it "perfect".
Of course, they can always use a different assembler, too.
Face it, the loudest people complaining about your editor (including
myself), are people who wouldn't use RosASM anyway. Figure out
how your audience is and *listen* to them. You're not going to attract
very many MASM users by breaking out the assembler from the
rest of the system. They'll say "cool, I can now use my favorite editor
to edit RosASM programs and continue using MASM.
> Actually, we are yet far from such a "perfect" achievement state.
>
> Nevertheless, you have also to consider all of the advantages
> coming with a Tool like this one, specifically written for Asm
> Source Editing, and with its complete integration into the RAD.
Yes, there are advantages.
The interesting thing I find in your statements here is that you've
been a big fan of defining an assembler by the things it must
not have ("it must not have built-in HLL control structures like
IF/WHILE," "it must not support libraries," "it must not...").
If I were real nasty, I'd start harping on the fact that the IDE has
nothing to do with the assembler and could make a strong case
that what you've really got is a *system* not an assembler.
So think about that the next time you start claiming that MASM
and HLA aren't useful for writing "assembly language".
> I will not recall you all of the features of this Editor, but
> i suppose you could feel pleased with having it branched
> directely to the Macros Parser, for example, for viewing what
> it does with some Macros Invocations, or to the errors Manager
> for errors pointing, or pleased, with the Right-Click feature
> saving so much of your Dev. Time, or with the evoluated Blocks
> Indentation taking care of not touching the Labels, and so on...
> Aren't you?
Other than the user interface violates just about every human-interface
guideline ever invented for Windows programs, it's not a bad editor.
I won't even revisit the problems one can have with the fonts in that
editor (i.e., you want to complain about HLA's buggy setup facilities...).
But I'm trying to be nice here...
> Many of these specific features would simply not be possible
> (or, at leats terribly difficult to implement...) with an
> independant Editor.
Yes.
That is the strength of the RosASM system.
It has a "specific editor".
>
> Now, for the guys really not wanting to be "forced" to such
> an Editor, there are others, perfectely valid choices: NASM
> and FASM are very good Assemblers. I never let go an occasion
> of pushing to give also a serious try to these serious Tools.
Then again, I've also read posts where you've blasted these products,
as well. Praise you heap on products seems to be at your convenience.
If you didn't have MASM and HLA to kick around, I suspect you'd
be attacking these other products instead.
You are right about one thing: NASM and FASM are very good assemblers.
So are MASM, HLA, TASM, Gas, GoASM, A386, etc., etc., and even
RosASM. Every assembler has its place in this arena. The sooner you realize
this and start working on making RosASM the best you can make it, rather than
trying to keep a "score card" of good and bad assemblers, the better off you'll be.
Let the end-users decide what they want. Some are going to pick HLA because
it's appropriate for their needs. Some (as the original poster demonstrates) are
not going to pick HLA because it doesn't suit their needs. Some will pick RosASM.
Many will pick MASM. Many will pick NASM. Some will pick FASM.
As long as they all pick an assembler, we all win. That's the bottom line.
You can go on and on about how HLA or MASM aren't *real* assemblers.
The bottom line, though, is that such rants make people doubt your sanity
sometimes. So as you've been told a hundred times already -- stop this
nonsense and start actively promoting RosASM. Rather than telling us
what other assemblers can and cannot do, why not tell us what RosASM
*can* do. Rather than griping about "hidden code" in HLA or MASM,
why not post your RosASM examples here that do the same thing and
demostrate the superiority of your approach. People are smart. If they
see that you've got a better solution, they may very well switch to RosASM
and your dreams for the "assembly rebirth" will come true.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
P.S. You've given me and HLA so much free publicity in the past, I figured
I'd change the subject line just to return the favor to you. Cheers.
Randall Hyde
"drhowarddrfinedrhoward" <drhowar...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:v8idb.3757$SD1.2694306922@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
> On the other hand, I read here where some who know asm decide to pick up AoA
> to learn HLA and that makes no sense to me at all. I think Randy would
> agree, also.
Well, certainly it isn't something I'm expecting to occur very often.
Some people will buy the published edition of AoA out of respect, or as a way
of saying "thank you for all the free stuff you've given away in the past."
Some people will buy it because the assembly they already know is HLA,
and they want a *hard* version of AoA.
Some people, who already know assembly (not HLA) will buy AoA in
published form because they actually want to learn HLA (perhaps so
my new electronic book project, "Windows Programming in Assembly"
will make sense to them).
OTOH, as I've said many times, I don't see a lot of people who already
know MASM switching to some other assembler (ditto for any other
assembler out there, to and from). Yes, there are a small number of people
who are willing to switch to a different assembler, particularly if the change
isn't all that great (e.g., from NASM to FASM). There *are* some people
who have switched from other assemblers to HLA; I don't doubt that, by
now, there are people who've switched from HLA to some other assembler.
But the cross-over is a small percentage of the population.
That's why I don't actively target existing assembly language programmers
with HLA or AoA. HLA is not the vehicle for that approach (the only sane
way to attract defectors from an existing assembler is the FASM approach -
make your syntax very similar to an existing product that has an existing
user base and then add some features that those users want that is not
present in the existing product).
> If you don't know any HLL and are not a hardware guy, I'm not sure AoA is
> the place to start but understanding the hardware is more important to study
> first. Not necessarily volts and amps as much as how the registers and
> memory, etc. all work together.
AoA is not the right place to start if you don't already know a HLL.
Somewhere in this thread was the comment that learning HLA really
required learning *two* languages. If you don't already know a HLL,
then this statement is *right on*. If you're learning programming via
the "assembly language as your first language" route, then you don't
want to learn things like "IF" and "WHILE" and so on. Jeff Duntemann
has a good book (uses NASM), "Assembly Step-by-Step" that
teaches assembly language as a first programming language. I heartily
recommend Jeff's book for anyone who insists on learning assembly
this way. AoA was written for people who already know a HLL and
can leverage that knowledge to help them learn assembly faster. Without
that prerequisite knowledge, AoA's pedagogical methods are *not*
going to work well.
Now as to whether learning assembly language as your first language
is a good idea or not, that's worth debating. Obviously, I am of the
opinion that it's not the best approach for most people. Others feel
differently.
> I do feel there should be a current AoA book just for asm and no HLA, and it
> is sadly missed.
There is an opportunity here folks!
I can promise very little competition from me (almost all my future books,
except for one reference book I'm doing, will use HLA for the assembly code).
Rene has an opportunity to do an assembly book using RosASM, for example.
I've even given him permission to use AoA/16 as the basis for such a book (he
decided to start complaining about AoA rather than take advantage of this offer).
NASM crowd already has at least three books I'm aware of and I've given them
the same offer I've given Rene.
Thomasz *is* working on a FASM tutorial, AFAIK.
Getting a new MASM book is going to be a hard sell, as Microsoft no longer
actively promotes MASM and publishers are scared about published a book
on an unsupported product.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
sinewave
> #include( "stdlib.hhf" )
i predict foaming at the mouth, followed by: "THIS IS NOT ASSEMBLY!"
> Sure, you'll attract the "I hate Microsoft at all costs"
> crowd who, nontheless, feel they have to write code for
> Windows (using some lame excuse like ReactOS).
tragic: when someone's capacity to hate Microsoft excedes their capacity to
learn Linux.
> Why is it *not* okay for an assembler to include things like
> "IFs" and "WHILEs" built-in to the assembler, that really
> have nothing to do with "true" assembly language, but it's
> okay for the assembler to contain PE-specific stuff.
10 years from now Rene will realize that he has re-invented MASM.
regards,
phil
Pete
well, like i said, i was a big fan of AoA DOS version, i thought that it was
fairly easy to read+understand, that was one reason i liked it.
But like you say, that was first written 10 years or more ago. HLA version,
tho it may take much from other versions, is fairly recent, and indeed the
concept of HLA is also a relatively recent thing. I think HLA does
complicate matters unnecessarily.
I would love to see a 32-bit non-HLA version of AoA.
I think it is just a difference of opinion. Perhaps I am in the minority,
but i think there will be many others like me. It is good that you are aware
of us, and hopefully will take our opinions on board.
It may be interesting to note that I actually _wanted_ to learn asm. When I
first started, I was teaching myself, and was not at university.
I_wanted_to_understand_, that was my aim, rather than 'I wanted to pass the
course', or even 'i wanted to learn everything they wanted to teach me', as
i think is much more likelier the case with your students.
Since then, I became a student, and last year had to take a course on asm.
By this time I had already started writing my first asm OS, and even the
teacher confessed that I was a lot more knowledgeable on the subject than he
(tho that was perhaps due to his lack of experience than anything else). I
am no guru or sage, indeed i would still class myself now as a novice asm
programmer. Anyway, to my annoyance, we didnt actually _assemble_ a single
program; none of the students were taught even what an assembler was or how
to use one, and thought the slow speed which programs ran on the GUI
simulator/emulator thing we typed our asm code into, was real asm speed. You
can only imagine what I was screaming in my head as i heard comments from
students such as 'Assembly is nowhere near as fast as Java is it?'. That
being said, I still think for new asm programmers, the emulator approach is
a good one, but obviously they should be taught more about the assembly
process, and then move onto using nasm or something.
Most of my fellow students had done no programming prior to coming to uni,
they did a little java before the asm course started but that was it. I
think HLA for them, would have been confusing to them like it was to me, tho
maybe not as much so.
I hope I have made myself clear. I applaud your intentions ie helping ppl
learn, but i am anti-HLA for reasons given. You can intend to stroke someone
and end up punching them!
Pete
PS When is the RosAsm version of AoA coming out?!?
Betov
>
> "drhowarddrfinedrhoward" <drhowar...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> message news:v8idb.3757$SD1.2694306922@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>> [...]
>
>
>> I do feel there should be a current AoA book just for asm and no HLA,
>> and it is sadly missed.
>
> There is an opportunity here folks!
> I can promise very little competition from me (almost all my future
> books, except for one reference book I'm doing, will use HLA for the
> assembly code). Rene has an opportunity to do an assembly book using
> RosASM, for example. I've even given him permission to use AoA/16 as
> the basis for such a book (he decided to start complaining about AoA
> rather than take advantage of this offer). NASM crowd already has at
> least three books I'm aware of and I've given them the same offer I've
> given Rene. Thomasz *is* working on a FASM tutorial, AFAIK.
About your "friendly" offer for having me adaptating AoA16 to 32,
yes, i have been stupid enough, in the past, for not understanding
_why_ you made me this offer... and i did most of the work...
Then, i understood your real point, and i simply deleted all of my
work. Much work for nope, but, anyway, your AoA16 was not that good:
Awfully verbose, very scolastic and very pedantic. In fact, i was
almost glad to kick all of this blabla out.
Now, about Docs, RosAsm one are there:
< http://betov.free.fr/RosAsm.html > // in the B_U_Asm Page.
About physical "Books", mind you, a frenchy Editor already got
in touch with me for a publication. My answer has been:
"Send me your complete actual Collection, and, if i like it, we
will discuss the price later".
He never answered. :)) :)) :))
In fact, i do not see any reason for publishing a Programming Book.
If a Programmer is unable to take advantage of Soft Doc, he'd
better do something else than programming (for example, play with
a baloon). Personaly, i prefer trees to printed books, and, not
talking of Arts and Mystiscism, i am in the opinion that most
human ideas are not worthy the paper they are written on. This
is particulary true for your glossolaly.
As opposed to you, i am not in need of any personal glory. "Betov"
is exactely: Nobody. I am not in need of having my true name on
a Book, as i am closer to death than to glory, and quite frankely,
if, one day, i had my book on the the same Book Store stage as AoA,
imagine the shame for me, with having my real name aside yours.
Betov.
PS. ... and do not expect than trying to be nice with me, like
you did in your previous post, will calm down my fight against
you, of any bit. I will fight you until you get kicked out.
Randall Hyde
"Pete" <no-...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:bl4oiv$1pf$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
>
>
> well, like i said, i was a big fan of AoA DOS version, i thought that it was
> fairly easy to read+understand, that was one reason i liked it.
> But like you say, that was first written 10 years or more ago. HLA version,
> tho it may take much from other versions, is fairly recent, and indeed the
> concept of HLA is also a relatively recent thing. I think HLA does
> complicate matters unnecessarily.
Sure, for someone who know assembly already, I would have to agree 100%.
AoA/32 was not written for that audience.
> I would love to see a 32-bit non-HLA version of AoA.
I would love to see different assembly books, using all manner
of different assemblers available. When that happens, we'll know
that assembly language is once again being taken seriously.
AoA is probably the first new beginning assembly language book published
in about a decade. True, we're seeing newer and newer editions of
existing books (e.g., Jeff Duntemann's, Kip Irvine's, and Peter Able's books), but
they're almost all DOS books for heaven's sakes (though Duntemann's book
does cover a little Linux, it is still primarily a DOS book). I remember the late
80's and early 90's when there were, literally, a dozen books on x86
assembly language available. It would be nice to see a few more new books
on the subject. Even if they don't use HLA :-)
> I think it is just a difference of opinion. Perhaps I am in the minority,
At this time, you are definitely in the majority.
The majority of assembly programmers today are *not* HLA users.
The last thing they want is a bunch of new HLA programmers because
most of them don't know HLA and don't want to learn HLA.
I don't blame them, quite frankly. If it looked like I was going to have
to switch from MASM or HLA to some other assembler (e.g., Gas or
A386) that I'm not particularly interested in learning, I'd be annoyed too.
Your's isn't a difference of opinion, it's just human nature. You've already
learned how to do this assembly programming, why should you have to
waste time relearning it? The good news is that I agree with you (and
John Found). There is no reason for *you* to read AoA or learn HLA.
However, that doesn't mean that there aren't good reasons for others
to read AoA and learn HLA. If they are in AoA's target audience, then
the combination will probably work out well for them. Fortunately, there
are lots of options for other people to pursue who don't fit into the
AoA/HLA mold.
> but i think there will be many others like me. It is good that you are aware
> of us, and hopefully will take our opinions on board.
I even answer MASM questions as I'm able :-) (though I must admit that
my MASM skills are beginning to atrophy a bit...).
I am *totally* dedicated to one assembly project that is not totally HLA-based.
As soon as I get my current book project, "Write Great Code", out of the way,
I intend to write a "Universal x86 Reference Manual" that provides a parallel
x86 reference for a half-dozen or so popular assemblers (e.g., MASM, TASM,
NASM, FASM, Gas/AT&T, Gas/Intel, and HLA, possibly others). That way,
if an assembly language programmer is looking at some code in one assembler
that they are not familiar with, they can use the book as a sort of "Rosetta Stone"
to figure out the translation to the assembly language that they are familiar with.
Beyond that, however, I'm afraid that I will be devoting most of my writing skills
to creating HLA examples; after all, I specifically created HLA to make it easier
to teach assembly language programming (both beginning and advanced topics).
So to expect anything else out of me would be, well, expecting a bit much.
I'd love to write a version of AoA for every assembler out there. But such a
project would take about a year's effort. Time I just don't have anymore.
> It may be interesting to note that I actually _wanted_ to learn asm. When I
> first started, I was teaching myself, and was not at university.
> I_wanted_to_understand_, that was my aim, rather than 'I wanted to pass the
> course', or even 'i wanted to learn everything they wanted to teach me', as
> i think is much more likelier the case with your students.
> Since then, I became a student, and last year had to take a course on asm.
> By this time I had already started writing my first asm OS, and even the
> teacher confessed that I was a lot more knowledgeable on the subject than he
> (tho that was perhaps due to his lack of experience than anything else). I
> am no guru or sage, indeed i would still class myself now as a novice asm
> programmer. Anyway, to my annoyance, we didnt actually _assemble_ a single
> program; none of the students were taught even what an assembler was or how
> to use one, and thought the slow speed which programs ran on the GUI
> simulator/emulator thing we typed our asm code into, was real asm speed. You
> can only imagine what I was screaming in my head as i heard comments from
> students such as 'Assembly is nowhere near as fast as Java is it?'. That
> being said, I still think for new asm programmers, the emulator approach is
> a good one, but obviously they should be taught more about the assembly
> process, and then move onto using nasm or something.
> Most of my fellow students had done no programming prior to coming to uni,
> they did a little java before the asm course started but that was it. I
> think HLA for them, would have been confusing to them like it was to me, tho
> maybe not as much so.
Again, HLA is *going* to be confusing to someone who already knows assembly.
AoA's presentation is *going* to be confusing to someone who doesn't already
know a HLL.
AoA's presentation is targetted at a specific audience (a big audience, but a specific
one nonetheless). You, obviously, fall outside that audience and I have to agree that
the AoA/HLA approach is probably not appropriate for you.
Let's consider your instructor for a moment. This situation is not unusual (University instructors
not knowing assembly language very well). That's why I started teaching assembly language
way back in 1989 - I was sick and tired of the stupid treatment assembly was getting
by instructors who didn't know assembly and didn't want to have to teach it (teaching
assembly is something that's typically dumped on instructors, it's rare to find a school
where the instructor *really* wants to teach the class). HLA is just as perfect for this
type of instructor as it is for his/her students. He'll find it easier to learn and easier to teach.
The only fear I have is that such an instructor may give the student the short shrift and
not teach them full assembly. Such instructors usually get nailed by the students (who
*can* read the book and might worry about that phrase "you can't really call yourself
an assembly programmer until you learn the low-level coding techniques").
>
> I hope I have made myself clear. I applaud your intentions ie helping ppl
> learn, but i am anti-HLA for reasons given. You can intend to stroke someone
> and end up punching them!
Oh, I knew exactly where you were coming from when I read your first post.
The main reason I've taken the time to respond in length, as I have, is not
to change your opinion, I have no desire to do that, but simply to clarify where
I see AoA/HLA being beneficial and, just as important, to point out that I
am keenly aware that the AoA/HLA approach is not appropriate for all
circumstances. There are clearly some people around here for whom the
RosASM approach (tossed into the fire) is *really* the best way to learn
assembly.
> Pete
>
> PS When is the RosAsm version of AoA coming out?!?
I gave Rene the right to do what he wishes with AoA/16 vis-a-vis SpASM.
I'd bug him about that....
(actually *I* do bug him about that now and then; the best thing he could
do to improve RosASM's popularity is work on that conversion).
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Randall Hyde
"Betov" <be...@free.fr> wrote in message news:Xns9403DE123E...@213.228.0.196...
>
> About your "friendly" offer for having me adaptating AoA16 to 32,
> yes, i have been stupid enough, in the past, for not understanding
> _why_ you made me this offer... and i did most of the work...
>
> Then, i understood your real point, and i simply deleted all of my
> work. Much work for nope, but, anyway, your AoA16 was not that good:
> Awfully verbose, very scolastic and very pedantic. In fact, i was
> almost glad to kick all of this blabla out.
Well, then feel free to write a new book of your own from scratch.
Whether you edit what I've written, write your own stuff, or get it
from somewhere else, the fact remains that this is something you *have*
to do in order to improve the popularity of your product.
>
> Now, about Docs, RosAsm one are there:
>
> < http://betov.free.fr/RosAsm.html > // in the B_U_Asm Page.
It's a good start.
Now- make it html.
Put it in a form that people can read it off-line.
Get rid of the .EXE file. No, you don't like PDF, fine,
make it plain ASCII then.
Leave off the socialistic crap you've stuck in there. No one
really cares.
Organize the document better (HLA's doc isn't exactly the
epitome of organization, but it's not *that* hard to find stuff
in the manual; in the RosASM/SpASM documentation I always
find myself reading the *whole thing* just to figure out something).
And don't forget that there is a *big* difference between a reference
manual and a tutorial-like text (e.g., AoA). You may be writing
RosASM for accomplished assembly programmers (big mistake, IMO,
but that's another issue), but RosASM's syntax and programming
paradigm is sufficiently different from almost every other assembler
on the planet that you really need to provide a verbose, very scolastic,
and very pedantic introduction to RosASM so people can figure it out.
I know, your attitude is that "smart programmers will figure all this out
on their own without asking any questions." However, that's why people
aren't jumping on the RosASM bandwagon. There's so few of us out
ere who are as smart as you are. By expecting everyone to be as
brilliant as you are, you're limiting your perspective audience to a small,
elite, group. If that's what you want, fine. But don't complain about the
popularity of other assemblers that cater to those who do need to ask
questions now and then or want something a little less concise than
the RosASM manual.
>
> About physical "Books", mind you, a frenchy Editor already got
> in touch with me for a publication. My answer has been:
>
> "Send me your complete actual Collection, and, if i like it, we
> will discuss the price later".
>
> He never answered. :)) :)) :))
Yep. I'm sure you blew him off just like you blow off so many
people around here and you blow off so many perspective RosASM users.
What a shame.
>
> In fact, i do not see any reason for publishing a Programming Book.
> If a Programmer is unable to take advantage of Soft Doc, he'd
> better do something else than programming (for example, play with
> a baloon). Personaly, i prefer trees to printed books, and, not
> talking of Arts and Mystiscism, i am in the opinion that most
> human ideas are not worthy the paper they are written on. This
> is particulary true for your glossolaly.
Tree-ware is much easier to read that e-text.
Colleges and Universities have a hard time with e-texts (I can tell you
all about that one; I've probably averaged about one email a week for
the past eight years begging for a hard version of AoA that an instructor
could put in the bookstore at school; indeed, that was one of my major
motivations for putting in the work to see the AoA project through - you
might think it was for the money, ha!, there is no money in this stuff; it
was done in order to make it possible for University instructors to
specify AoA for their courses).
You wouldn't believe the stream of emails from happy people I've gotten
this year: "AoA is finally going to be in print!" I also got a nice string
of hate mail as the project kept getting delayed :-).
Regardless of what *you* want, most people out there really do want
the information in published form. It's so much more convenient than
e-text or even printing it out yourself. It's also nice to have the information
go through a professional editing phase to clean things up a bit.
>
> As opposed to you, i am not in need of any personal glory. "Betov"
> is exactely: Nobody.
Randy Hyde: perfect nobody!
> I am not in need of having my true name on
> a Book, as i am closer to death than to glory, and quite frankely,
> if, one day, i had my book on the the same Book Store stage as AoA,
> imagine the shame for me, with having my real name aside yours.
If you have no desire for glory, then what's your beef with people who do?
You accuse me of being a total glory hound all the time.
Trust me, there are much easier was to attain glory that mess around in the
archaic field of assembly language programming. I've put a lot of effort into
this field because it *needs* the help, not because there are assembly people
that I feel the need to impress. If people like yourself would write good assembly
books, and make this "assembly rebirth" of yours happen, then I'd go off and
work on a new high level language that I've been thinking about for the past
20 years or so. Alas, assembly hasn't been doing too well the past 15 years
and I've taken some time to help rectify that because I believe that people should
still be learning to program in assembly language. Glory! Ha! Provide the name
of the guy who "invented" an assembly language that well known throughout
the field of Computer Science. You call that glory? A large number of people,
however, can name the guys who invented Pascal, C, C++, Java, AWK,
Python, Ruby, etc., etc. Jeff Duntemann has made a good name writing
assembly books, but he's *more* famous for his Pascal books. I'm sorry;
assembly is not something you chase if you're in it for the glory. You might
impress a lot of virus-writing hackers (as I've apparently done; there are links
to my site from all sorts of cracker sites), but you don't impress the *real*
scientists in this field with this kind of work. If I were going for glory (and I
may yet), that would be the kind of glory I would seek.
>
> PS. ... and do not expect than trying to be nice with me, like
> you did in your previous post, will calm down my fight against
> you, of any bit. I will fight you until you get kicked out.
Of course. I don't expect any different.
That's the difference between us and one of the main reasons I (and
many other people around here) feel that RosASM doesn't really
stand a chance -- your attitude. Though I have some *serious*
misgivings about RosASM's applicability in the realm of assembly
language programming, I don't go around telling people that
this isn't a "real assembler" or call you names, or be especially
uncivil on the basis of your work. I *do* call you on a few of your
personal insults now and then, and I certainly nail you when you
post some absolute nonsense about what assembly is and isn't,
but as a general rule I try to treat you as civilly as I can, I avoid
calling you names (though you definitely deserve it now and then),
and I don't go around posting essays on "The Rene Tournois Case"
that are outright libellous. Again, I tolerate you in the hopes that
someday you'll grow up a little bit and learn how to interact with
the human race a little better. Maybe someday, should that occur,
I can leave the "assembly rebirth" in your hands and move on to
that high level language project I've been dreaming about all these
years. To date, however, you haven't demonstrated a willingness nor
the ability to continue the work I started way back in 1989. All you've
been is divisive and provocative. Oh well, maybe someone else will
come along...
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Randall Hyde
"mchiper" <not...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:qnacnvg6vanrsnusn...@4ax.com...
>
> In alt.lang.asm, Msg ID: <bl26s5$6f9$1...@titan.btinternet.com>
> "Alex McDonald" <alex...@btopenworld.com.ns>, wrote:
>
> >This is an odd and quite peculiar argument. "I must learn French"; very
> >well, live in France, immerse yourself in the language, speak nothing but
> >French. But then many learn to speak French outside France by receiving
> >tuition in English, until their French suffices to a degree of
> >understanding.
> >This does not contradict the reason for the existence of English.
>
> Learning English in order to learn French is not only STUPID,
> It's counter productive.
>
> You CAn however learn TWO languages as FIRST languages.
> Because...
> The ONLY way to learn the nuanses of Language,
> is to immerse yourself in THE language.
>
> Ohterwise your are a pretty shitty translator too.
Okay, generally I don't inject myself into masty arguments that get out of
hand, but the analogy here is a complete failure so it's time to put this
to rest.
First of all, AoA does *not* teach assembly language as a first
language. If you're going to learn assembly language programming
using AoA, the assumption is that you already know a high level
language like C, C++, Java, Pascal, etc. If you don't, then AoA is
not the appropriate text with which to learn assembly language.
You truly *would* have to learn two languages at once with that
approach and that *would* be more work and it wouldn't be worthwhile.
Jeff Duntemann has a *fine* book, "Assembly Step-By-Step" that I would
recommend to anyone who is attempting to learn assembly language
as their first programming language. It uses NASM.
Note, btw, that I've been using AoA ("The Art of Assembly"), not
HLA in this example. There is no reason at all you couldn't learn
assembly as your first programming language using HLA -- assuming
you had the appropriate pedagogy available (which doesn't exist today).
You would *not* learn the HLL-like control structures when learning
assembly language using this approach. Instead, you'd ignore all that
stuff (which would be confusing to someone who doesn't already know
how those statements function). Instead, you'd concentrate strictly on
the low-level machine instructions. Believe it or not, assembly language
*can* be taught this way using HLA. No one forces you to use those
high-level constructs. They exist primarily for the convenience of beginners
who already understand their semantics (and for advanced programmers
who know when it's appropriate to use such constructs). AoA teaches
assembly language programming using these HLL-like constructs because
AoA is written for people who already know a HLL language. That is
not the only way to teach assembly using HLA; as I've said, you could
teach assembly as a first language using HLA if you really wanted to.
I don't want to. First of all, I believe that it's better to learn a HLL first.
Second, the number of people wanting to learn assembly who already
know a HLL is *much larger* than the number of people who want
to learn assembly as their first programming language. As Jeff Duntemann's
book services this latter audience quite well, why would I want to split
such a small market in two? Anytime someone tells me they want to learn
assembly as their first programming language, I always offer them two pieces
of advice: (1) most people find it's better to learn a HLL first, and (2) if you
not one of these "most people", then get Jeff's book.
As for the English/French debate --- I'd have to agree, it's not worthwhile
to learn English if your goal is to learn French. The Jeff Duntemann approach
is to teach French directly to the guy who doesn't know any language.
The AoA approach is "Hey, if you already know English, here's an easy
way to learn French based on your knowledge of English."
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Randall Hyde
"mchiper" <not...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:he9cnvkulrcqeas2e...@4ax.com...
>
> In alt.lang.asm, Msg ID: <bl2398$77d$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
> "Pete" <no...@i-see-a-little-siloutte-of-a.man>, wrote:
>
> >
> I'm saddened to hear this.
>
> I have the Art Of Assembly.. the html /PDF.
> Not sure what it's good for.
> I would think I'd have printed it, if it was useful.
> How Can I find out if it's the DOS version or not.
> Files are dated 10/12/96.
> It begins with
> Why learn ....................... Forward (sic)
You have the 16-bit (obsolete) version.
Frankly, I'm not sure what it's good for either, as I'm
not a big fan of teaching DOS programming these days. :-)
You can find three versions (16-bit DOS, 32-bit Windows,
and 32-bit Linux) on Webster at
http://webster.cs.ucr.edu.
You can find a combined 32-bit version (Windows and Linux)
at your local bookstore.
You can also find "Windows Programming in Assembly" on
Webster at the above URL (yes, it also uses HLA).
And, to answer a complaint voiced in the MASM forum,
you can find the MASM documentation on Webster, as well.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Ed Beroset
> In alt.lang.asm, Msg ID: <oprv52q7...@10.0.0.1>
> And the OTHER choice is easier?
You're not being very clear here, so I don't understand which other
choice you're referring to.
> Write your own libraries before you can write a line of application code?
If you're using C++ (or C or assembly or Forth or other typical
programming language) for embedded systems work, it's entirely possible
that you'd do just that. Typically, you get the hardware up and running
first with just enough software to tell whether the thing is actually
working. Then you add drivers, e.g. memory device drivers, serial port
drivers, ethernet, LCD, whatever, to handle I/O. Only when all that
stuff is working does it make sense to actually put the application code
in the device. Judiciously used, C++ code can result in executable code
of reasonable size. I can point you to some web sites or provide
specific pointers if you're interested, but it's not really an assembly
language question, so we can do that outside of this newsgroup. Email
would work.
> Where will this BULL SHIT end?
Well, it can be used to fertilize crops. Sometimes the crop is hay for
the bulls and cows. The cattle consume the hay with, of course, the
inevitable result. So, as any farmer can tell you, it never ends. If
you have any other such questions, I'd suggest getting in touch with an
agricultural expert in your area.
Ed
Randall Hyde
"mchiper" <not...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:u5fcnvoql0otmrqas...@4ax.com...
> >If you're going to learn assembly language programming
> >using AoA, the assumption is that you already know a high level
> >language like C, C++, Java, Pascal, etc.
>
Really?
AoA was written for the University environment. Which is
where the *vast* majority of people get their first introduction
to assembly language. There isn't a single University Computer
Science program I'm aware of that teaches assembly language
*before* the students are taught a high level language.
I'd say it's a fairly *good* assumption that most people know
at least one high level language before learning assembly.
There is no question that some people don't fall into this
category; maybe you're even one of them. But it's not at
all foolish to say "this book is intended for people who have
already learned programming via a HLL; that probably covers
better than 98% of the people who wind up learning assembly
language.
> I learned Assembly language the same way I learned
> Spanish, English, and Italian..
> By example.. it wasn't taught, It was just learned.
More power to you. That's not how *most* people learn
assembly language. You are a special case. I'm sorry people
don't write books for you and develop special tools for you.
Then again, you don't seem to need them. I hope you realize
you're a special case. AoA was not written for people like you.
It was written for the other 98% of the population.
> In the case of Assembler, in addition to examples,
> I used the Intel 80x86 Techical Ref Manual
> - Learn something about machine Architecture while you are at it...
> ( Don't bother if you are into building houses without touching wood and nails tho. -:)
> and the DOS Technical Ref Manual..
> And an EXCELLENT disAssasembler that produced
> 1. ASMs that could be run back thru MASM and reaasembled.
> 2. Macros that showed the DOS calls for what they were..
> By Name and Fn...
> Etc.. etc...
Yes, you can learn assembly language programming via osmosis
just as you can learn a language by being around the language.
However, there is no replacement for a formal education in
a given subject. Do you realize how long it takes to *really* learn
a new language (natural or synthetic) by "just being around it?"
You'll learn it much more quickly, albeit with a bit more concentrated
work involved, via formal study. Students in a typical course have
only 10-15 weeks to learn this stuff; plus, of course, they've typically
got two or three other courses, too. The "osmosis" plan just doesn't
work well under those circumstances. It takes to long and there are
too many holes in the coverage of important material.
> **** You have to have the RIGHT tools to learn ****
Exactly.
That's what HLA was created for.
>
> >As for the English/French debate --- I'd have to agree, it's not worthwhile
> >to learn English if your goal is to learn French. The Jeff Duntemann approach
> >is to teach French directly to the guy who doesn't know any language.
>
> More silly bull shit.
> It worked in the Army to get soldiers to learn German in ?? weeks too.
> Somewhat limited vocabulary, BUT
> Good enough to pass for German..
If you learned assembly the same way these guys learned German, then
you've still got a lot to learn about assembly language.
There's a difference between "passing as an assembly programmer"
and actually being one.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
T.M. Sommers
> In alt.lang.asm, Msg ID: <VNcdb.8024$yp6.1...@nnrp1.ptd.net>
Most people use programs called compilers or assemblers to turn their
source code into object code. It is much faster than trying to do it
by hand.
> Is this part of the Libraries thingie..
I have no idea what you are talking about here.
Randall Hyde
"mchiper" <not...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:oaccnvot3u9cjd5gk...@4ax.com...
>
> I use MASM, I like it fine.
Lots of people use and like MASM.
> Biggest problem I have, that I know of, is with file sizes.
That's not MASM as much as it is the PE/COFF format.
> I have a copy of something called MASM32.
> Not a clue what it'll do for me..
> I'm not quite ready for win world.
Elsewhere you say people have to have the right tools
to learn things. Well, I take that if you're using MASM
and you don't know what MASM32 or the win world
is all about, then you must be programming in DOS (well,
OS/2 is a possibility, too).
Uh..... right tools?
No offense, but your comments on how people should be
educated to learn assembly are about 10 years out of date.
Let me get this straight: it's not okay to learn an "extra"
language before learning assembly (or have to learn
two languages, a "high-level" assembly and a low-level
assembly, at the same time), but it is okay to have to learn
DOS, which almost no new programmer will ever use again?
Uh....
> >> MICROSOFT are obsessed with C and Java
> This is the kind of crap I want to avoid..
That's fine. Other people want to use this stuff.
Other people already know this stuff when they start learning
assembly language. The fact that you have no interest in
this kind of stuff has little bearing on what they know, what
they want to know, and how they should learn assembly.
> Am I wrong when I think that there is nothing you can say
> in any of these, that you can't say in ASM?
You are not wrong at all. The_Sage may argue differently,
but it's pretty obvious that anything that can be done can be done
in assembly if one is willing to expend the effort.
> Only better.. with less "optimizing" to produce un readable nonsense crap?
Most people find assembly programs to be more difficult to read than
HLLs. Unreadable is in the eye of the beholder. If you think that your
DOS assembly code is exceptionally readable, why not post some of
your best code here and give people the opportunity to look it over?
As a large percentage of the DOS code I've seen (not all, but a large
percentage) looks to me like "unreadable crap" there are probably
many people around here who could benefit from your examples of
well-written DOS assembly code.
> >i would say that the industry and colleges are pushing Java, C++, C#, and
> >VB. as i am sure you know C++ and C are not the same language. very compact
> >and efficient programs can be produced using C if the programmer knows what
> >they are doing.... not difficult but it won't happen by osmosis.
>
> Is asking "Where's the beef?" osmosis?
It's coming, actually.
I'm currently working on a book series entitled "Write Great Code"
that specifically explores how to write efficient code in any language.
Someone who *really* knows what they're doing in a HLL can produce
some pretty good code. Parts of the Linux kernel are a good case in
point. Many of the C constructs were written with an eye towards
controlling the code that GCC produces, in order to produce very
good object output. It's not easy to write code this way (about as
much work as writing in assembly in the first place), but the code
*is* portable to other processors (even if you don't get the same
optimized code on those other processors).
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Randall Hyde
"mchiper" <not...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:v5dcnvk293vdc19i1...@4ax.com...
> >Emacs has already been written.
> >
> >Seriously. It has a major mode for assembly, and can invoke compilers
> >and capture the output in a buffer.
>
> Is this part of the Libraries thingie..
Are you just trolling like "The_Sage"?
Or do you really not understand what was being said here?
Perhaps you should tell us a little bit about your background
vis-a-vis assembly language programming and your
programming experience in general. I, for one, am making
too many assumptions about your background that cannot
possibly be true. It would be nice if we knew something about
where you're coming from so we can adjust our dialog
appropriately. If you're really trying to have a reasonable
conversation here, we're going to need some background
information so we can adjust the dialog appropriately.
The direction you're headed with this is pretty much
guaranteed to stoke some flames, so unless that's your
intent, I'd take a little care.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Randall Hyde
"mchiper" <not...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:sjgcnv8e6h3re0imi...@4ax.com...
>
> In alt.lang.asm, Msg ID: <I7pdb.5852$RW4....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>
> "Randall Hyde" <rand...@earthlink.net>, wrote:
>
> >Again, HLA is *going* to be confusing to someone who already knows assembly.
> >AoA's presentation is *going* to be confusing to someone who doesn't already
> >know a HLL.
>
> A language that calls it self a High Level Language.
> Or a language that calls itself a High Level Assembly language. ????
You claim to use MASM. MASM is a high-level assembly language.
TASM is also a high-level assembly language.
HLA just happens to make that distinction clear in its name.
Are you confused by MASM?
>
> >AoA's presentation is targetted at a specific audience (a big audience, but a specific
> >one nonetheless). You, obviously, fall outside that audience and I have to agree that
> >the AoA/HLA approach is probably not appropriate for you.
>
> Then what is.
I don't know your background. Soit's a bit difficult to recommend a path for you.
You've sworn off learning HLLs (or so I gather), so I can tell you that the
AoA/HLA route isn't going to work for you. Maybe you should take a look
at Jeff Duntemann's book. It's designed for teaching assembly as a first language
(using NASM). I don't know how much assembly you already know, so I don't
know how much you're going to get out of Jeff's book.
Tell us about yourself, please. Then perhaps some people around here
can make some recommendations.
> I know enough assembler to make other programs I didn't write
> do what I want..
> As long as they aren't too big.
> And as long as they don't play too many exe tricks..
> ( Just enough to be dangerous - I'd say :-)
> Right now I'm working to un ravel something using DOS/4GW.
> All I have to work with is,
> I only want to patch into the command line interface.
Okay, the picture is becoming clearer.
> >Let's consider your instructor for a moment.
> >This situation is not unusual (University instructors
> >not knowing assembly language very well).
>
> My first "programming" experience was some piece of crap
> that made me think I was really writing a program..
That's good.
What was your second, and third, and fourth, and ..., experiences like?
The more code you write, the better off you'll be.
But it *is* important to learn how to write your own, reasonable,
reasonable applications from scratch. There is a *big* difference
between hacking up an existing program and developing an application
from scratch.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Randall Hyde
"mchiper" <not...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2hdcnv4rcs7shfn9s...@4ax.com...
>
> In alt.lang.asm, Msg ID: <f28db.4912$RW4....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>
> >I'm a CS major at the Univ. of Hawaii @ Manoa taking Assmembly for the first time.
> >HLA has helped me very much in learning assembly.
> ><<<<<<<<<<
>
Are you relating your *own* experiences now?
He said "HLA has helped me very much..." how do you know
otherwise? Maybe he was lying to me, I don't know (then again,
why would he go to the effort of sending me such a complimentary
email if he was going to lie about it?). But the two of us (you and me)
don't know anything else about this guy. Who are we to say that
he did or did not have help learning assembler (via HLA)?
>
> >I probably get four or five of these emails every week.
> >As I said, HLA isn't perfect for everyone; but a lot of beginners have
> >many kind things to say about it.
>
> Right on..
> Students in college are known to be experts in
> What to learn, and How to learn.
> The very BEST professors just point the way...
The very BEST professors do a *lot* more than that.
However, they make sure the students think that they just
pointed the way. I hope that someday you get the opportunity
to teach a class yourself so that you can fully appreciate what
it takes to be a successful teacher.
I realize you're being facetious (or, at least, I *hope* you're
being facetious), but if I understand your posts correctly,
*you're* a student, right? So I guess that makes you an
expert on what to teach and how to learn the material, right?
Again, I'm quite proud of you, insofar as you're pretty good
at learning this stuff on your own. Just keep in mind that most
students, particularly when it comes to assembly language,
aren't in your percentile at all. They need the help, they need
the instruction, and they need the tools to help them efficiently
learn this stuff in one term.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Randall Hyde
"mchiper" <not...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:mddcnvgiv33rrt9bm...@4ax.com...
> >
> >No need to be sorry. You are just as welcome to your opinion as I am to mine.
>
> Your opinion makes it sound like we are talking about Flavors of Ice Cream. :)
We're talking about different intelligence levels, different levels of motivation,
and different backgrounds (in students). No single form of instruction is suitable
for everyone. *I* happen to have some experience teaching assembly language
programming to students, so I've got a pretty good idea about what works well
for an average student. You seem to be a bright chap and you've got a pretty
good idea about what works well for you. However, don't make the assumption
that what works well for you automatically works well for everyone else. I made
that mistake the very first quarter I taught and it was a disaster. I learned real quick.
That's why I said in a different post that I hope you get the opportunity to teach
assembly language sometime. You'll discover real quick that the way you've learned
assembly won't work well with the average student.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Randall Hyde
"mchiper" <not...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:vvhcnv8vvjn34a48m...@4ax.com...
>
> In alt.lang.asm, Msg ID: <tjqdb.6033$RW4....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>
> >> Not sure what it's good for.
> >> I would think I'd have printed it, if it was useful.
> >> How Can I find out if it's the DOS version or not.
> >> Files are dated 10/12/96.
> >> It begins with
> >> Why learn ....................... Forward (sic)
> >
> >You have the 16-bit (obsolete) version.
You've made it clear that you're a DOS programmer.
If you don't believe DOS is obsolete, then you're welcome
to your beliefs. I sure hope you find that learning DOS is
helpful later in life for you.
> >Frankly, I'm not sure what it's good for either,
>
> I'll be the judge of that too. :-)
No. I wrote it, I get to be the judge of that.
> >As I'm not a big fan of teaching DOS programming these days. :-)
>
> And I can't be taught, but I'm always willing to learn.
Really?
Then give up on DOS and start learning Linux or Windows.
It will be a much more practical experience for you.
You might want to take up RosASM under Win32.
I understand Rene Tournois is looking for people who
want to learn stuff on their own without having to be taught.
You sound like the perfect candidate (and I'm serious) for RosASM.
> >You can find three versions (16-bit DOS, 32-bit Windows,
> >and 32-bit Linux) on Webster at
> >http://webster.cs.ucr.edu.
>
> Yep.. Been there done what I did.
> Now I'm starting to understand why I didn't go further.
????
> >You can find a combined 32-bit version (Windows and Linux)
> >at your local bookstore.
>
> >You can also find "Windows Programming in Assembly" on
> >Webster at the above URL (yes, it also uses HLA).
> >
> >And, to answer a complaint voiced in the MASM forum,
> >you can find the MASM documentation on Webster, as well.
>
> I have all I require from the horses mouth, IF that the end he speaks with. -:)
Well, now you're acting like a teenager.
You *really* should consider RosASM. You could learn a lot from
Rene Tournois :-)
> Actually from several sources.
> The Intel 80x86 Tech Ref is a MUCH better (indispensable) reference.
> Shows what the op codes mean and do in excruciating detail.
> Including all the other bits involved. :)
So why are you complaining about HLA and AoA if you've got these
other tools that are so great? Do you somehow feel unfulfilled because
other people aren't struggling with assembly the same way you are/did?
No offense, but this is headed nowhere.
It's very clear that you're a "The_Sage" wannabe, but without the
knowledge to make you dangerous. So I'm really wasting my time
trying to have a conversation with you.
Cheers, and good-bye,
Randy Hyde
sinewave
> I will fight you until you get kicked out.
how? why? there is enough room for both of you. RosAsm is a good assembler:
clean up the documentation and make a more standard interface. the speed is
excellent, the syntax is nice.
regards,
phil
sinewave
> If you have no desire for glory, then what's your beef with
> people who do?
XCHG. Rene does have a strong desire for glory.
> Again, I tolerate you in the hopes that someday you'll grow
> up a little bit and learn how to interact with the human
> race a little better.
IMO learning is primarily self-taught. education helps one to interact with
others and be humbled.
regards,
phil
sinewave
> I learned Assembly language the same way I learned
> Spanish, English, and Italian..
> By example.. it wasn't taught, It was just learned.
how about learning 32-bit windows asm programming next? break out your copy
of MASM32.
> Is asking "Where's the beef?" osmosis?
here is the beef...
TOP_WINDOWS_ASSEMBLER:
http://www.masm32.com/ <-- MASM32
HIGH_LEVEL_ASSEMBLER:
http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/Page_hla/0_Page_hla.html <-- HLA
http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/Page_AoAWin/HTML/AoATOC.html <-- tutorial
EXCELLENT_TUTORIALS:
http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/ <--- Randall Hyde http://win32asm.cjb.net/
<--- Iczelion (Windows)
http://www.agner.org/assem/ <--- Agner Fog's Optimizations
OTHER_ASSEMBLERS:
http://flatassembler.net/ <--- FASM
http://nasm.sourceforge.net/ <--- NASM
http://betov.free.fr/RosAsm.html <--- RosAsm (SpAsm)
http://www.godevtool.com/ <--- GoAsm
DEBUGGER:
http://home.t-online.de/home/Ollydbg/ <--- Ollydbg
OTHER_PAGES:
http://www.azillionmonkeys.com/qed/asm.html <--- Paul Hsieh
http://grc.com/smgassembly.htm <--- Steve Gibson
GOOD_FORUMS:
http://board.win32asmcommunity.net/index.php <--- Win32ASM
http://www.masmforum.com/ <--- MASM
regards,
phil
Alex McDonald
"Randall Hyde" <rand...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:6gqdb.6029$RW4....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
> Okay, generally I don't inject myself into masty arguments that get out of
> hand, but the analogy here is a complete failure so it's time to put this
> to rest.
>
My apologies to all. I'm getting frustrated; like Donald Sutherland in
Kelly's Heroes, I could do with "less of the negative vibes". alt.lang.asm
has lost its eclectic sanity (often robustly expressed, it's true). But
recently it has descended into a babel of anarchy (mostly irrational and
rude). I'm off.
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
Annie
On 2003-09-28 rand...@earthlink.net (Randy Hyde) said:
> Then give up on DOS and start learning Linux or Windows.
> It will be a much more practical experience for you.
_____
Randy, you keep repeating this ((( `\
advice like some kind of nutty _ _`\ )
'60s mantra. (^ ) )
~-( )
But it's not necessarily GOOD _'((,,,)))
'advice.' ,-' \_/ `\
( , |
'Learning WinDoze or Linux' `-.-'`-.-'/|_|
only teaches one how to inter- \ / | |
act with an operating system's =()=: / ,' aa
API; not with the actual machine
at the lowest levels.
Frankly, this low-level interaction is one of the attrac-
tions of x86 assembly language -- for me, and for many
others, as well.
Your 'advice' is roughly analogous to the cockamamie
'60s concept of replacing phonics (low level) with the
'whole language' or the 'see-and-say' method of learning
to read English.
The result? We ended up with a couple of generations of
barely-literates who have almost no real knowledge of the
foundational principles of the language.
YOU, of all people, should know that. Over the years, you've
had to try to TEACH those sorry little bastards.
If "DOS is dead," why does Mikro$loth continue to support
it, even in M$'s newest and allegedly 'most advanced' gooey-
based protected-mode O.S.es for the i86 hardware platform?
Fact is, Randy, DOS will only be 'dead' when some processor
manufacturer succeeds in capturing the mainstream CPU market
with a chip which doesn't support i86-style real mode.
And at that point, WinDoze and Linux (as we know them today)
will be 'dead,' as well.
You know as well as I do that WinDoze is a bloated, unwieldy,
reprobate and back-slidden operating system that's nigh
impossible for its manufacturer to maintain. It ain't gonna
be around for too much loner.
By pushing HLA and WinDoze, you're essentially fiddling while
Redmond burns. Get OVER it, d00d. Hehehe!
Love, Annie
Randall Hyde
"Annie" <an...@oal.com> wrote in message news:bl7ju2$1le7$1...@news.wplus.net...
> _____
> Randy, you keep repeating this ((( `\
> advice like some kind of nutty _ _`\ )
> '60s mantra. (^ ) )
> ~-( )
> But it's not necessarily GOOD _'((,,,)))
> 'advice.' ,-' \_/ `\
Well, if *you* want to continue pushing DOS, be my
guest.
> ( , |
> 'Learning WinDoze or Linux' `-.-'`-.-'/|_|
> only teaches one how to inter- \ / | |
> act with an operating system's =()=: / ,' aa
> API; not with the actual machine
> at the lowest levels.
Learning DOS only teaches one to interact
with DOS' API, not the actual machine at the
lowest levels.
> Frankly, this low-level interaction is one of the attrac-
> tions of x86 assembly language -- for me, and for many
> others, as well.
Are you confusing learning the PC's hardware architecture
with learning x86 assembly language programming?
Most of the CPU features that one can access under DOS
are just as available under 32-bit OSes (i.e., forget real mode,
but other than that...).
Now if you're talking about learning the PC's (circa 1980's)
hardware architecture, guess what? That's quickly becoming
obsolete too. Legacy ports are disappearing. ISA is gone.
Not that any of this has *anything* to do with learning assembly
language programming, mind you.
But yes, if you want to learn how to interact with I/O devices
that are rapidly disappearing from the scene, then using DOS
is probably going to be the easiest route.
>
> Your 'advice' is roughly analogous to the cockamamie
> '60s concept of replacing phonics (low level) with the
> 'whole language' or the 'see-and-say' method of learning
> to read English.
Really? I don't see the analogy at all.
What I see, by your proposal, is that I should be teaching
people about software that is obsolete so they can learn to program
hardware that is rapidly becoming obsolete. I prefer to be a little
more forward looking than that.
> The result? We ended up with a couple of generations of
> barely-literates who have almost no real knowledge of the
> foundational principles of the language.
Explain to me what the PC's hardware has to do with assembly
language. Everything about the CPU that you can learn in
assembly can be learned under Windows and Linux. What's
the problem?
> YOU, of all people, should know that. Over the years, you've
> had to try to TEACH those sorry little bastards.
And you know what. One of the things that convinced me that
teaching students how to program the parallel ports was a *really*
bad idea was when PCs started showing up at school that didn't
have standard parallel ports on them anymore.
> If "DOS is dead," why does Mikro$loth continue to support
> it, even in M$'s newest and allegedly 'most advanced' gooey-
> based protected-mode O.S.es for the i86 hardware platform?
Really? Show me where MS-DOS is on Microsoft's price list.
Show me where I can get an upgrade to MS-DOS.
How many new books were published in the past couple of years that
teach programming under DOS? How many major applications do
you know of that have been released in the past couple of years
were written for DOS?
> Fact is, Randy, DOS will only be 'dead' when some processor
> manufacturer succeeds in capturing the mainstream CPU market
> with a chip which doesn't support i86-style real mode.
If you mean "dead" as in absolutely no one uses it, you are correct.
I mean "dead" as in there is no practical reason for any new programmers
to learn anything more about DOS these days (let's put it up there
with RT-11, Apple DOS 3.3, the UCSD P-System, CP/M, and
so on; yep, there *are* some people who still use *and even write
software for* these systems today, but it's not something you want
to teach students how to do).
> And at that point, WinDoze and Linux (as we know them today)
> will be 'dead,' as well.
Sure.
But if you think that "students" appreciate being forced to learn
about DOS,. when they realize that they will *never* use that
knowledge again once they leave the class, you are mistaken.
> You know as well as I do that WinDoze is a bloated, unwieldy,
> reprobate and back-slidden operating system that's nigh
> impossible for its manufacturer to maintain. It ain't gonna
> be around for too much loner.
:-)
Yes, I know that as well as you do. Within months RosASM and
ReactOS is going to kill off Microsoft completely. And SCO is
going to shut down all of the Linux community, so we'll all be moving
back to DOS and loving it.
> By pushing HLA and WinDoze, you're essentially fiddling while
> Redmond burns. Get OVER it, d00d. Hehehe!
> Love, Annie
If it weren't Microsoft, it would be someone else (probably Sun).
I got over this whole political nonsense many years ago when IBM
was the "bad guy."
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
sinewave
i can see your post! DOS is definitely not dead: embedded, FreeDOS, etc.
regards,
phil
Annie
On 2003-09-28 no...@nowhere.com (Phil) said:
> hi Annie:
> i can see your post!
_____
Yo, Phil-dawg. I found an ((( `\
"open" news server. So I'll _ _`\ )
post my Usenet messages (^ ) )
through that server...at ~-( )
least until they finally _'((,,,)))
wake up and discover that ,-' \_/ `\
their software is miscon- ( , |
figured. Then they'll lock `-.-'`-.-'/|_|
me out. Hehe! \ / | |
=()=: / ,' aa
> DOS is definitely not dead: embedded,
> FreeDOS, etc.
It's even much more than that, Philip, but shhhhhh!
Don't tell Randy H., d00d. It'll upset his comfortable
pre-conceptions. Hehehe!
Randall Hyde
"Annie" <an...@oal.com> wrote in message news:bl887n$16u$1...@news.wplus.net...
> It's even much more than that, Philip, but shhhhhh!
> Don't tell Randy H., d00d. It'll upset his comfortable
> pre-conceptions. Hehehe!
Yeah, wouldn't want to do that!
BTW, I'm willing to be upset.
Why not enumerate all the commercial projects you know about
that use DOS. I'd like to know so I can pass that information on
to students who are interested in the job skills they'd obtain by
learning DOS APIs.
Let me relate to you my experiences with students.
In the 1995-1996 time frame I was teaching assembly under
DOS using MASM. Mind you, this was *eight* years ago.
Every quarter about 20% of the course evaluation forms came
in with students complaining about being taught DOS and
how *worthless* it was to be forced to learn that information.
For a while, I used the good old argument of "well, you don't
really understand what you're learning and *I* know better
than you know what you'll need when you get out of school."
But as time passed, the the complaints grew, it was quite clear
the students had a point. I want to emphasize something here -
we're talking about the PC world *before* Windows 95 appeared.
Finally, I realized that it is the University's job to be *forward-thinking*
not *backwards*. It made no sense from a pedagogical, professional,
or commercial point of view to continue teaching DOS.
Yep, there still are *some* jobs that need DOS knowledge.
I offer two answers to that: 1. the number of such jobs is very small
today and is shrinking, 2. There are *tons* of assembly programmers
who know DOS and can readily satisfy those needs. Why would
we want to teach anyone else that stuff? It has nothing to do with
teaching assembly language and students regard it as pure overhead,
reducing the efficiency of their educational experience (and they are
quite right about that).
Of course, feel free to write your own book that teaches assembly
language programming using DOS. Find a publisher first, though!
Good luck,
Randy Hyde
Ross Simpson
> > 'Learning WinDoze or Linux'
> > only teaches one how to inter-
> > act with an operating system's
> > API; not with the actual machine
> > at the lowest levels.
> Learning DOS only teaches one to interact
> with DOS' API, not the actual machine at the
> lowest levels.
I guess what Annies suggesting is using Hardware Interrupts. Using a machine
at it's lowest levels would involve booting up a binary coder & writing
everything in binary! ;-)
> > Frankly, this low-level interaction is one of the attrac-
> > tions of x86 assembly language -- for me, and for many
> > others, as well.
> Are you confusing learning the PC's hardware architecture
> with learning x86 assembly language programming?
> Most of the CPU features that one can access under DOS
> are just as available under 32-bit OSes (i.e., forget real mode,
> but other than that...).
Hardware Interrupts? They maybe possible, but not recommended for
multitasking systems.
> Now if you're talking about learning the PC's (circa 1980's)
> hardware architecture, guess what? That's quickly becoming
> obsolete too. Legacy ports are disappearing. ISA is gone.
> Not that any of this has *anything* to do with learning assembly
> language programming, mind you.
In a sense that's true. It's really a mixure of the ol' with the new. We do
our thing & you do yours! ;-)
> But yes, if you want to learn how to interact with I/O devices
> that are rapidly disappearing from the scene, then using DOS
> is probably going to be the easiest route.
It's really a question of whoever wants to follow it. I like collecting all
this ol' hardware & playing around with it. A CD-ROM burner will have to
something new to put on my list (since 3.5" floppies are quickly
disappearning!)-:
> > Your 'advice' is roughly analogous to the cockamamie
> > '60s concept of replacing phonics (low level) with the
> > 'whole language' or the 'see-and-say' method of learning
> > to read English.
> Really? I don't see the analogy at all.
> What I see, by your proposal, is that I should be teaching
> people about software that is obsolete so they can learn to program
> hardware that is rapidly becoming obsolete. I prefer to be a little
> more forward looking than that.
Programming the Hardware direct is such an testing task since as you state
it's becomming Obsolete. However, it's the idiot that stated that it was IBM
compatable!
> > The result? We ended up with a couple of generations of
> > barely-literates who have almost no real knowledge of the
> > foundational principles of the language.
> Explain to me what the PC's hardware has to do with assembly
> language. Everything about the CPU that you can learn in
> assembly can be learned under Windows and Linux. What's
> the problem?
Assembly language is the best language for Hardware, but unfortunately since
the USB Keyboard, the USB Printer, the USB Mouse & oh wait the USB Monitor
have come into play, all those nice little programs which look directly to
the Hardware no longer work! Not very compatable is it! ;-(
Fortunately nowadays the standard programs, which are Windows/Linux based,
exceed the a standard size that a normal dialup internet user (like
ourselves) cannot reach, but since new computers can access broadband
there's nothing to worry about. Hard Disks are large enough so that a 30Mb
file is cool!
> > YOU, of all people, should know that. Over the years, you've
> > had to try to TEACH those sorry little bastards.
> And you know what. One of the things that convinced me that
> teaching students how to program the parallel ports was a *really*
> bad idea was when PCs started showing up at school that didn't
> have standard parallel ports on them anymore.
And who was responcible for creating that Parallel port. I've been saying
all this time that the hardware manufacturers are screwing up this IBM. The
first thing they should have changed which seems to be the last thing on the
agenda of all to change is the CPU! I'm talking about a processor, which is
compatable of running all this ol' software, but cannot because of USB
Keyboards, Mice, Monitors & Printer. That was really smart! ;-)
But it's not your fault Randall. Perhaps posting to comp.hardware earlier
may have prevented this, since it might of been the place where hardware
manufacturers created their stuff went to read peoples views!
> > If "DOS is dead," why does Mikro$loth continue to support
> > it, even in M$'s newest and allegedly 'most advanced' gooey-
> > based protected-mode O.S.es for the i86 hardware platform?
> Really? Show me where MS-DOS is on Microsoft's price list.
> Show me where I can get an upgrade to MS-DOS.
> How many new books were published in the past couple of years that
> teach programming under DOS? How many major applications do
> you know of that have been released in the past couple of years
> were written for DOS?
> > Fact is, Randy, DOS will only be 'dead' when some processor
> > manufacturer succeeds in capturing the mainstream CPU market
> > with a chip which doesn't support i86-style real mode.
> If you mean "dead" as in absolutely no one uses it, you are correct.
> I mean "dead" as in there is no practical reason for any new programmers
> to learn anything more about DOS these days (let's put it up there
> with RT-11, Apple DOS 3.3, the UCSD P-System, CP/M, and
> so on; yep, there *are* some people who still use *and even write
> software for* these systems today, but it's not something you want
> to teach students how to do).
It was about 5 years ago when I first leaned a little about the 8086
assembly language & lots of people sadily back then were asking why are we
programming in this? (as they saw it as dead). The teacher did have a make
good point about learning it because it provides the fundamentals towards
learning x86 based assembly language! Moving onto other greater things can
be done once the basis is established! ;-)
Cheers,
Ross.
Ross Simpson
> > It's even much more than that, Philip, but shhhhhh!
Actually, I just propose this interesting theory:
If there were more DOS users today:-
* Selling Shareware would be more profitable.
* There would be more Shareware programs.
There are still people who haven't released their software (under DOS) as
Freeware (instead of Shareware) & try to encourage people buy their
software. In most instances it has caused people to stop updating their
software (or slow the progress of it), if they believe that no-one is
interested or no-one cares.
A few years ago I felt like, work could be got out of selling shareware
programs for DOS, but not anymore.
Quite possibly, if DOS was still going strong with a bit of interest, then
hardware wouldn't be quite the same.
I believe that Shareware is more than just a hobby, if it's making plenty of
money, then it's a profession.
Cheers,
Ross.
Annie
On 2003-09-29 rand...@earthlink.net (Randy Hyde) said:
> Why not enumerate all the commercial projects you know about
> that use DOS. I'd like to know so I can pass that information on
> to students who are interested in the job skills they'd obtain by
> learning DOS APIs.
_____
Shame on you, Randall, for ((( `\
setting up a straw man like _ _`\ )
that, just so you can knock (^ ) )
it down. This discussion had ~-( )
nothing to do with commercial _'((,,,)))
projects or job skills. ,-' \_/ `\
( , |
But to answer your question: `-.-'`-.-'/|_|
the last commercial DOS soft- \ / | |
ware application project for =()=: / ,' aa
general public consumption was
when Michael Polak (of X-Chaos, now Arachne Labs) leased
the source code for 'Arachne' to Caldera, Inc., for use in
Caldera's 'DR-WebSpyer' graphical web browser for DOS.
That was in 1998.
Of course, commercial development of DR-DOS (now owned
by DeviceLogics, Inc.) is on-going...with embedded,
flashROM-able and stand-alone PC versions of DR-DOS
currently available. An advanced Version 8.0 is slated
for release shortly.
While DOS is no longer the mainstream O.S. of most
home and business computing, DeviceLogics, Inc.
continues to generate a fair income by leasing the
use rights to DR-DOS.
Their clients include many 'big-name' companies, so
SOMEBODY is still developing DOS apps -- probably for
embedded and vertical markets.
And it's doubtful that the continuing development of
DR-DOS by DeviceLogic's programming team is being done
under WinDoze. Hehe!
Naturally, I realize that you have a personal vested
interest in WinDoze -- since your HLA "front end" for
MA$M is a WinDoze-based app.
I certainly don't begrudge you your 15 minutes of fame
for HLA. But let's not try to stretch it into an hour...
okay? Hehehe!
sinewave
yo Annie, glad i can see your posts. i was wondering who everyone was
talking with. i hear linux and VxWorks is hot in embedded.
regards,
phil
Randall Hyde
"Annie" <an...@oal.com> wrote in message news:bl92lt$2k71$1...@news.wplus.net...
> _____
> Shame on you, Randall, for ((( `\
> setting up a straw man like _ _`\ )
> that, just so you can knock (^ ) )
> it down. This discussion had ~-( )
> nothing to do with commercial _'((,,,)))
> projects or job skills. ,-' \_/ `\
It doesn't?
I'm sorry, but *students* are the vast majority
of people learning assembly language these days.
They are *quite* interested in learning skills they
can use on future projects in future jobs.
However, I will hand you this - if you're just the
"renaissance woman" who wants to learn things for
the sake of learning things, and nothing more, then
there is no reason not to learn DOS.
Unfortunately, as someone who writes books for
use by students in order to prepare them for the
real world once they leave school, I do have to
consider issues like "commercial applicability"
and "practical skills."
It was a hard decision to give up on DOS.
It was a *lot* of work I had to throw out when
going from AoA/16 to AoA/32. But the old
text was becoming irrelevant. Case in point,
look up the discussion of AoA's arrival on
slashdot. The book was heralded in with
great fanfare. One of the very first comments
was "That book is obsolete -- it discusses
16-bit, real-mode, DOS programming. Why
would anyone want to buy that?" The poster
was ignorant of the changes in AoA, of course,
but the post does explain why I chose to put
in the considerable effort to eliminate DOS
(in fact, if you read the published AoA/32 edition,
you'll find that there are *very few* examples
that depend upon a particular OS; should I port
HLA to BSD, for example, there is only one chapter
in the entire book that wouldn't immediately apply).
> ( , |
> But to answer your question: `-.-'`-.-'/|_|
> the last commercial DOS soft- \ / | |
> ware application project for =()=: / ,' aa
> general public consumption was
> when Michael Polak (of X-Chaos, now Arachne Labs) leased
> the source code for 'Arachne' to Caldera, Inc., for use in
> Caldera's 'DR-WebSpyer' graphical web browser for DOS.
> That was in 1998.
That was 2-3 years before I wrote the 32-bit edition of AoA, I might
point out (and two years after I made the decision to go with Windows
rather than DOS for the 32-bit edition).
>
> Of course, commercial development of DR-DOS (now owned
> by DeviceLogics, Inc.) is on-going...with embedded,
> flashROM-able and stand-alone PC versions of DR-DOS
> currently available. An advanced Version 8.0 is slated
> for release shortly.
That's wonderful.
How many students reading AoA do you believe will wind up working
on DR-DOS? Keep in mind, AoA is about "assembly language
programming", not embedded systems, and not operating system APIs.
Those subjects would make a great subject for some *other* book,
but any discussion of these subjects in an *assembly language*
book distracts the reader and takes the place of additional *assembly
language* that they could be taught. ASM books (AoA included)
already have too many distractions. The idea is to focus on the
subject at hand, not expand it. AoA is too big as it is :-)
>
> While DOS is no longer the mainstream O.S. of most
> home and business computing, DeviceLogics, Inc.
> continues to generate a fair income by leasing the
> use rights to DR-DOS.
No doubt.
So what should I teach DR-DOS in an *assembly language* book
again? What does that have to do with assembly language programming?
>
> Their clients include many 'big-name' companies, so
> SOMEBODY is still developing DOS apps -- probably for
> embedded and vertical markets.
So *every* graduating Computer Science and Electrical Engineering
major should be required to learn DOS programming because
SOMEBODY, somewhere, is using DR-DOS? Perhaps that's
not so bad, let me put it in different terms:
what subjects that are *truly* assembly language should I give up
in the course in order to take the time to teach DR-DOS?
I guess I could give up discussing the HLA Standard Library.
Except that I've found the use of library routines to be the most efficient
thing I've ever introduced in my assembly courses; indeed, when I taught
MASM/DOS based assembly, I used the UCR Standard Library.
So I really wouldn't be saving anything there.
I'm open to suggestions, what do I cut out in order to teach DR-DOS?
>
> And it's doubtful that the continuing development of
> DR-DOS by DeviceLogic's programming team is being done
> under WinDoze. Hehe!
Yeah, it's probably done under Linux :-)
>
> Naturally, I realize that you have a personal vested
> interest in WinDoze -- since your HLA "front end" for
> MA$M is a WinDoze-based app.
Really?
HLA runs under Windows AND Linux.
Someday I'll get around to porting it to BSD.
BTW, HLA is a "front-end" for MASM, TASM, FASM, and Gas.
Now you're starting to sound like Rene.
>
> I certainly don't begrudge you your 15 minutes of fame
> for HLA. But let's not try to stretch it into an hour...
> okay? Hehehe!
Now you're really starting to sound like Rene.
FWIW, I had my 15 minutes of fame way back in the Apple II days.
Given a choice between fame and fortune, I'll take fortune every time.
All that fame does for you is paint a target on your back so people like
yourself, Rene, and "The_Sage" will try to shoot you down at every
opportunity they get.
BTW, why not write your own NASM book?
Then you'd get *your* fair share of that 15 minutes.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
T.M. Sommers
>
> Really?
> HLA runs under Windows AND Linux.
> Someday I'll get around to porting it to BSD.
It seems to run just fine under FreeBSD's Linux compatibility mode.
At least the hello, world program does (I just tried it). Presumably
other programs will, also. You just have to run "brandelf -t Linux"
on the output.
Martin Slater
I'm gonna state now that i don't know any particular assembly language very
well, i have written tiny little bits n pieces when needed (always led by an
optmiser and trying to recode in c or c++ first to get the performance i
need). Most work i do with asm is viewing the output of compilers in vtune
and seeing what i can do to optmise my high level code to improve things,
these are important skills that do not require being able to code a complete
prog in asm.
I reckon i'm probably the kind of programmer AoA is aimed at, been coding
for 15 years, nowadays mainly purely in c++. I'm reading this forum for two
reasons, to get more info on assembler and to see the sage making a complete
twat of himself on a daily basis, the latter kinda makes me feel better
about myself in many many ways.
When and if i learn assembly properly and deeply it would be very nice not
to be in the position of having to learn everything at once to get something
compiling and working and what AoA and HLA seems to offer is the ability to
let me get into the bits i'm actually interested in writing and not get
completely bogged down in the minor details. I use programming to achieve
results (both commericially and in my home projects), the quickest way to
achieve these results has got to be the best. Over time i may (or may not)
need to know more and more details and then i'm free to investigate them in
more detail.
What you wrote just appears to be a pointless rant (amongst others furthur
down the thread) by people who already know assembly in some depth and so
have little use for the book, which begs the question why do you care so
much?
Martin
PS> And for whats its worth, when i go about learning something i;m gonna
kind of respect the experience of someone who has actual real world
experience of teaching these things and has obviously developed tools to
help in that process as a response to the actual needs of their students.
"Pete" <no...@i-see-a-little-siloutte-of-a.man> wrote in message
news:bl2398$77d$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> I have finally reached an opinion on HLA. Sorry, Randy...........
>
> If the HLA version of AoA had been out a couple of years ago when I first
> started trying to learn assembly, I honestly believe I would not be here
> today still bothering with asm.
> As it turned out, I read the DOS version, and to this day I still
recommend
> this version to others who want to learn. What I do not recommend is HLA,
> for the below reasons.
>
> Why, when trying to teach people one language, does Randy double the work
a
> student has to do, and make them learn 2 languages! It is absurd, and adds
a
> lot of confusion. I came across HLA not long after I had started learning
> asm, I found AS A STUDENT, it confused the hell out of me and threatened
the
> clarity I was trying to achieve through reading good asm books and
> tutorials.
>
> HLA, IMO, makes learning asm harder. And as Randy makes it clear that the
> whole purpose of HLA is to help people to learn asm, HLA IS THE THING THAT
> SHOULD NOT BE. It contradicts its reason for existence!
> This is clearly the issue: does HLA help people learn asm? If you agree
with
> me that it does not, and indeed does the opposite, then you must surely
> agree that HLA is therefore a bad thing, as it betrays its purpose.
>
> No-one can deny that this is the main issue. Perhaps the following quote
> provides an explanation:
>
> "Typically as humans acquire expertise in a particular domain they become
> progressively _less_ rather than more able to articulate their
knowledge." -
> Machines And Thought, The Legacy of Alan Turing Vol 1
>
> I am not trying to make enemies here, just expressing my thoughts and
views
> on this issue.
> I have supported AoA for quite a while, but now there is a lessening
degree
> of separation between AoA and HLA, I am not sure I will be able to support
> it in future.
>
>
> Pete
>
>
Randall Hyde
"T.M. Sommers" <tm...@mail.ptd.net> wrote in message news:BO3eb.8332$yp6.2...@nnrp1.ptd.net...
Shows how much I know about BSD.
I did pick up a copy of FreeBSD at Fry's last week, so I am
seriously contemplating work on this some day.
A true native version would be nice, though.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
T.M. Sommers
I tried compiling it on FreeBSD, and got a ton (> 2000) of errors and
warnings from bison (version 1.75). The source I tried to compile I
downloaded tonight from your site. I also had to fiddle a bit with
the makefile. If you'd like, I can send you the compiler output, and
a diff that fixes a few missing semi-colons in the bison file.
Randall Hyde
"T.M. Sommers" <tm...@mail.ptd.net> wrote in message news:Ooaeb.8370$yp6.2...@nnrp1.ptd.net...
> Randall Hyde wrote:
>
> I tried compiling it on FreeBSD, and got a ton (> 2000) of errors and
> warnings from bison (version 1.75). The source I tried to compile I
> downloaded tonight from your site. I also had to fiddle a bit with
> the makefile. If you'd like, I can send you the compiler output, and
> a diff that fixes a few missing semi-colons in the bison file.
>
No doubt. All Bison compilations have been done under Windows
using Bison 1.875, the resulting C code was then passed on over to
Linux and compiled there. I'm not a big fan of the editors available
under Linux (emacs - don't even go there), so I do all my development
under Windows and struggle through with Code Warrior whenever I
have to do light editing on the Linux side. The end result is that the
Bison file is an unknown quantity under Linux (originally, HLA's
compilation with Bison required a hacked version of Bison, it wasn't
until version 1.875 came along that Bison could handle a file as
large as HLA).
In any case, I am interested in the errors concerning missing semicolons
in Bison. The version I've got doesn't report these problems.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
T.M. Sommers
> "T.M. Sommers" <tm...@mail.ptd.net> wrote in message news:Ooaeb.8370$yp6.2...@nnrp1.ptd.net...
>
>>Randall Hyde wrote:
>>
>>I tried compiling it on FreeBSD, and got a ton (> 2000) of errors and
>>warnings from bison (version 1.75). The source I tried to compile I
>>downloaded tonight from your site. I also had to fiddle a bit with
>>the makefile. If you'd like, I can send you the compiler output, and
>>a diff that fixes a few missing semi-colons in the bison file.
>>
>
> No doubt. All Bison compilations have been done under Windows
Which explains why there wasn't anything in the makefile to make
hlaparse.c.
> using Bison 1.875,
I'll upgrade my bison and try again.
> the resulting C code was then passed on over to
> Linux and compiled there. I'm not a big fan of the editors available
> under Linux (emacs - don't even go there), so I do all my development
> under Windows and struggle through with Code Warrior whenever I
> have to do light editing on the Linux side. The end result is that the
> Bison file is an unknown quantity under Linux (originally, HLA's
> compilation with Bison required a hacked version of Bison, it wasn't
> until version 1.875 came along that Bison could handle a file as
> large as HLA).
Is there a reason the file can't be made smaller? A file that large
is very hard to work with, and takes forever to compile, and has to be
recompiled in its entirety for even the smallest change.
May I also suggest using the standard .y and .l suffixes for yacc
(bison) and lex (flex) files? Typically on Unix make knows how to
handle them without being told, just as it knows how to make .o from
.c, for instance, which makes the make file easier. Also, emacs knows
about them, too (I *will* go there).
> In any case, I am interested in the errors concerning missing semicolons
> in Bison. The version I've got doesn't report these problems.
Diff sent privately; I didn't keep the error messages.
Randall Hyde
"T.M. Sommers" <tm...@mail.ptd.net> wrote in message news:ISmeb.8451$yp6.2...@nnrp1.ptd.net...
> Randall Hyde wrote:
> > "T.M. Sommers" <tm...@mail.ptd.net> wrote in message news:Ooaeb.8370$yp6.2...@nnrp1.ptd.net...
>
> is very hard to work with, and takes forever to compile, and has to be
> recompiled in its entirety for even the smallest change.
You're telling me!
Actually, it can be made quite a bit smaller (and has been made
quite a bit smaller, at one time it was over 105,000 lines long).
Slowly, I've been eliminating duplicate code; I've been moving
large blocks of C code into external procedures. The big problem,
though, is the sheer number of productions. HLA is a *big* language.
I could probably cut the productions in half with a better design.
But, quite frankly, I'd rather put that effort into HLA v2.0 (if I could
ever get back to work on it). Flex & Bison were poor choices for
a lot of reasons. The inability to support separate compilation is
one of them (and Rene/Betov wonders why I don't think highly
of RosASM's inability to support linking in separately compiled
modules).
> May I also suggest using the standard .y and .l suffixes for yacc
> (bison) and lex (flex) files? Typically on Unix make knows how to
> handle them without being told, just as it knows how to make .o from
> .c, for instance, which makes the make file easier. Also, emacs knows
> about them, too (I *will* go there).
Feel free.
HLA v1.x is approaching the freeze point anyway. Indeed, I seriously
doubt you'll find too many new features added to the language. Just
maintenance stuff from here on out. The existing makefiles have served
me well and as there have only been a few others interested in the source
code in the past, I've never gone out of my way to change how the
compilation behaves. To me, getting the library code consistent between
the two OSes has been the major event of this year :-).
>
> > In any case, I am interested in the errors concerning missing semicolons
> > in Bison. The version I've got doesn't report these problems.
>
> Diff sent privately; I didn't keep the error messages.
Great.
HLA v1.x has always been a prototype. So I've not been as careful
with its design as I would a "real" project (i.e., it is a kludge).
I'd be a lot farther along with HLA v2.0 by now, but something Rene/Betov
said a while back reminded me of the fact that HLA has always been a
means to an end, not an end in and of itself. I've spent a lot of time over
the past three years "improving" HLA while letting the "real" reason for
its creation stagnate - specifically, I created HLA as a teaching tool, but
I've spent more time upgrading HLA rather than using it to teach.
So right now I'm busy working on a series of books, tutorials, etc.,
using HLA and work on HLA has settled down quite a bit. Once I get
caught up with those projects, I'll return to working on HLA v2.0.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Beth
> Pete wrote:
> > I am trying to stay specific here, and just go on a rant.
>
> lol, that was supposed to be:
> "I am trying to stay specific here, and NOT just go on a rant."
No, _do_ go on that rant...
There is nothing much to celebrate in limitation, incarceration,
restriction, debate without conflict, uniformity, narrow-mindedness,
neuroticism, ignorance, loss of control, dependence, the death of
creativity, denial of your nature, suppression, oppression, mere
puppetry, lack of purpose, misunderstanding, the danger of lack of
biodiversity, loss of opportunity, reduced horizons, walking over the
same old ground, being all alone in crowds, alienation, fear,
embarassment, paralysis, indistinguishability, blurred vision, a mere
statistic, a drop in an ocean, a tide that turns away, the blind
leading the blind, a more lemming over a cliff, a kamikazi pilot in an
unnecessary war, spiralling forever in a mobius loop, never reaching
any destination, spinning in a retrograde orbit, wandering without
sight, stabbing in the dark, .......
Primal scream therapy: Sing it loud and sing it proud...just one note,
top of your voice...let it out, let it go...c'est la vie, que sera
sera, egal...
Tomorrow will be a new day...
Hasta Manana...
"It's just around the corner,
It's just around the block
This Love that I've been waiting 4
A Love solid as rock...
A Love that reaffirms that we R not alone
A Love so bright inside U it glows
And night and day would run 2gether
And all things would b fine
Still would stand all hate around us
Still would stand all time
Still would stand all time
It's not a thousand years away
It's not that far, my brother
When men will fight injustice
Instead of 1 another
It's not that far
If we all say "yes" and only try
Then Heaven on Earth we will find
No 1 man will b ruler
Therefore Love must rule us all
Dishonesty, anger, fear,
Jealousy and greed will fall
Love...can...save...us...ALL
Oh, Love, Love, oh Love
If U would just please give us a sign
Still would stand all time
Heaven, Heaven on Earth we all want 2 find
(We all want 2 find it)
Still would stand all time
We R not alone people (we're not alone)
Tell me, can U see the light? (can ya see the light?)
If U just open your eyes (still would stand all time)
So much U will know...
So much U will show...
Love, Love, it's not that far away
If we all say "yes" and give it a try
(Gotta give it...a try...yes!)
Still would stand all time (I say still)
(so many times) so many times,
I thought I could not make it
Life was closing in
I just knew, I just knew I couldn't take it
That's when Love opened its arms
And if U don't go in, child...
Still would stand all time
(Still would stand all time)
U better run 2 the light
Leave your past behind
All things will b fine
Still would stand all time"
[ "Still Would Stand All Time", Prince ]
Beth :)
Beth
> Jeff Duntemann has a *fine* book, "Assembly Step-By-Step" that I
would
> recommend to anyone who is attempting to learn assembly language
> as their first programming language. It uses NASM.
Oh, no! He mentioned Jeff Duntemann!
Remember, whatever you do...don't mention Jeff Duntemann!
[ Sorry, running gag for those that don't know...someone posted a
complaint that there was supposedly a "conspiracy" against Jeff
Duntemann...while, in fact, it was just that hardly anyone knew about
the book who was in that thread...hence, the "don't mention Jeff
Duntemann" is, you see, all part of this non-existent "conspiracy"
against him...apparently...although, of course, the grand irony is
that he's probably got far more publicity for his work through this
gag about a "conspiracy" than without it, that it's probably the worst
conspiracy to keep Jeff Duntemann off the topic of conversation ever
;)
Shame Debs isn't around, she found that joke quite funny...so did
_Jeff Duntemann himself_, actually...he actually wrote me an Email
months later that he'd found the thread about his book and thought all
the "don't mention" jokes were very funny...and getting that Email
months later when I wasn't expecting was itself very amusing for me,
coming out of the blue from the man himself...amazing how such a
simple (and slightly pathetic) joke can spread so many smiles ;) ]
So, remember, folks, don't mention Jeff Duntemann!!!
Also, Jeff Duntemann may not physically be present in this newsgroup
or anything...but, as I got that Email from him, he apparently "scans"
over the newgroups from time to time to see if there's any mention of
his book...like someone posting up a problem about something in it on
the newsgroups...
Hence, if you are using Jeff Duntemann's book and you hit a problem
then you can actually send a "Jeff Duntemann signal" (something like a
"bat-signal" but where Jeff Duntemann shows up, not Batman ;) to
him...you probably won't get a reply for months, mind you...but if
you're patient and he's in the mood to bother to reply to you, then it
might be one way to get a message to the big man himself...
A bit like the all-seeing eye of God, just with a built-in delay of a
few months...just write "Jeff Duntemann's step by step assembly" in a
post along with your problem and then stick it up on the group...sit
back and wait a few months...bring to a boil and then serve with a
garnish of parsley around the edge...hehehe ;)
Beth ;)
Beth
> Randy wrote:
> > The Jeff Duntemann approach
> > is to teach French directly to the guy who doesn't know any
language.
>
> More silly bull shit.
> It worked in the Army to get soldiers to learn German in ?? weeks
too.
What? The Army wasn't able to speak any languages at all? Not one? Not
even English or anything?
Huh?!?
"More silly bull shit", indeed ;)
Beth :)
Beth
> Yes, you can learn assembly language programming via osmosis
> just as you can learn a language by being around the language.
> However, there is no replacement for a formal education in
> a given subject. Do you realize how long it takes to *really* learn
> a new language (natural or synthetic) by "just being around it?"
Moreover, with natural languages, you gain a whole extra level of
understanding by re-examining the language with disciplined studies of
formal language structure theory...
Such as, to wrongly use a split infinitive...or, perhaps, using a
preposition to end a sentence with...or if you was unaware of subjects
such as the subjunctive tone...or their was a problem with you're
confusing spelling phonetically...or with possesive's of your's...its
knot the whey too get any sort of qualification's as an "ecspert" of
langiges...
And note that all of the delibrate grammatical and spellings errors
above _are_ things you very, very commonly find in far too many
people's writings because the modern educational system has decided
that only "learning by osmosis" should be done with English in
English-speaking countries...
Apparently, so goes this twisted thinking, if you actually learn the
rules of the game, this ruins your "creativity" in actually being able
to win it (??!?)...to my mind, that's pure and utter nonsense...you
can't break the rules creatively unless you already know the rules to
begin with...nope, sorry, you'll win far more poker games learning how
to count the cards than can ever be learnt by "osmosis"...or by
randomly moving pieces on a chessboard waiting for the other player to
tell you if it's right or wrong (you'd better Hope they're honest as
cheating here would be so temptingly easy to do ;)...
Does the phrase "a thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters typing
the entire works of Shakespeare" ring any bells?
Note, I'm _totally_ for practical hands-on learning...and, yes, some
things can only be learnt by doing...but neglecting theory because it
seems a bit "boring" is cheating yourself, really...
And, anyway, for those who already know HLLs, HLA actually allows you
to start writing _practical_ programs almost immediately and the HLL
additions allow you to use "time saving" crutches to create "skeleton"
programs to wrap around some "experiment" you want to do (use the HLA
"stdout.put" to display things just because you can do that instantly
and it's not an important part of your "experiment" that you "have to"
write your own routines...sure, once the experiment is done, then code
it "raw"...I'm actually one of the few around here who's extreme
enough to suggest that, time and resources permitting, _everything_
should be preferrably done at the most "raw" level...one excellent way
to do this, in fact, is to code the basics in HLL (a HLL or HLA's HLL
stuff) and then, once the "framework" and algorithms are working and
perfected...re-code, optimise, re-work, tweak to obsession...that
method actually often is far faster than coding straight in "raw mode"
and has the beautiful ability that if you're working to a deadline
then you get it up and running first in a loose, slightly bloated
form...you know, the level that, actually, most software is at these
days so it "could" be released then and there...but, instead, we tweak
it and tweak it until the clock strikes twelve...wherever you were,
it's always kept working and releasable so just stop and release
it...if you want to sell ASM to environments with tight schedules and
budgets, this method might be the only way you can twist their arm:
"I'll code it HLL quickly and then will use the time up to the
deadline to tweak it to perfection")...
Beth :)
Beth
> You've never learned anything "by osmosis" so you don't have a clue.
He was born speaking fluent English? Able to walk? He had formal
classes in "operating a computer mouse"?
Note, I've learnt many things by osmosis...programming...being able to
type fast (nope, don't "touch type" but can reach those sort of speeds
because I simply know a keyboard better than the back of my
hand...and, yes, "osmosis" has its definite advantages: I switch hands
or type one-handed or smoke a cigarette as I type and many other
things touch typists can't even contemplate without skipping a beat at
all...my hands on a keyboard are utterly natural so you could even
grab one or two of my fingers as I type and I'd be able to adapt and
carry on very quickly...also, I picked up a German layout keyboard
within a few hours and can mentally switch between them now almost
instantly without hitting "y" when I should hit "z")...
But you _can't_ learn everything this way...neither method should ever
be considered "all or nothing"...learn _both_ ways simultaneously...in
a sense, when you are undergoing formal tuition, you really _are_
learning both ways because the teacher isn't doing the work for
you...supplement your "osmosis" with the "theory" too...enlighten your
raw instinct with conscious understanding of what that instinct
is...heck, just learn it so that you know all the official jargon
words to be able to discuss things even...
Da Vinci used complex mathematics to calculate where the light should
be landing on the faces of his portraits...
Beethoven actually _went totally deaf_ in later life and yet could
still compose some of the best (mathematically perfect) music ever to
be composed while totally deaf and unable to hear it...he could NOT
have been doing all "by ear" for obvious reasons...one also has to
consider _why_ he continued to compose music when he could no longer
enjoy it...the mathematics of harmony and dischord itself has an
amazing beauty to it, when you know where to look...
Shakespeare has numerous references to writers before him in his
works...English didn't have any "official theory" at the time but he
_certainly_ read widely and learnt much from study of other writers
like Chaucer...of course, Shakespeare himself actually helped _invent_
half the language and his additions are pretty systematic in nature
that he basically was a founder of the "official theory" which later
came...
There are more examples but surely these particular names are good
enough for the general point to sink in...or, if you like, we can look
at how hardware has gotten better and better but software has gotten
less and less imaginative and creative...look to old computer games
and _because_ the machines were so restricted, then the games couldn't
simply sell on "great graphics! great sound!", they had to have bold,
new, imaginative ideas...almost every game was different to the
last...boldly trying something new, full of crazy ideas or really
novel gameplay concepts...
These days, they've all given up because you can sell completely on
the fact that you hired a great computer artist to draw pretty
sprites...hence, every action game is just Quake in disguise (and
that's just DOOM in disguise itself)...every puzzle game is just
Tetris in disguise...the imagination and creativity are gone...
I can't remember where I heard it for the proper credit (was it Ricky
Tomlinson on Parky talking solitary confinement on TV yesterday?
Maybe, this rings a bell but I can't remember who it was for sure) but
I do remember hearing someone mention that: "Creativity is at its most
when a person is most restricted"...because, I'd say, this forces
imagination into the front as the greatest tool available to them
(rather than some useful but unimaginative and uninspiring debugger)
and I believe that this sums it up beautifully...well, almost, I have
heard an even more poetic way of phrasing it in some Paul Simon
lyrics:
"Give her the wings to fly through harmony...
...and she won't bother no more"
Some may never see this...don't have the "tortured artist" inside them
(a gift that cannot be given)...are completely satisfied by a stream
of half measures that "just" work...always thinking "good
enough"...people who, basically, aren't staring at the horizon,
wondering: "there is something out there...I just know it...and I will
find it!"...
They might not understand that the rules of the game and the limited
restrictions of your situation are the very breeding ground of
creativity...it is the home of the Muses...it's human nature; You must
be fighting or you're already dead...passion, honey...passion...trust
me, it's far from a dirty word...
"Every program starts life as an itch that the programmer just has to
scratch" (and if there's a big plaster cast on your leg over the itch
then just watch creativity unfold in a million ways to try to get that
itch scratched ;)...
> They passed for German becasue learning a language "by osmosis"
> permits you to avoid translation. And it permits you to THINK using
> the language, and actually use it as your NATIVE language,
> because it IS your native language.
Wirklich? Haben Sie die Erfahrung erhalten, um diese Hypothese zu
unterstützen?
I lived there and I went there not knowing a single word of the
language (well, except "schnell" because that's in every single war
film for no particular reason ;) and I picked up much by
"osmosis"...but it would have taken forever longer to have tried
without an English to German dictionary and my "Deutsche als
fremdsprache" book...I was only there for a year and, also, I was
there _because_ of my English so I didn't get every opportunity to
practice, so it's not a "native" language to me, unfortunately...
The School of hard knocks ("osmosis") _is_ the best teacher, I'll
grant (and, boy, does he batter you to pieces)...but, well, those who
only have a single teacher - however good - only learn from one
angle...only inherit that particular teacher's perspective...I mean,
what happens if that teacher forgets to mention something? And he
will...because in ordinary speech, no one ever talks about verbs and
nouns...no one explains those common or garden idioms because you
should already know them if it's your mother tongue...
_ONLY_ "Osmosis" can give you "Sprachgefuehl" (note: there is no
direct translation of this word to English, hence this itself is a
word and concept that only really is understood completely through
"osmosis"...the literal translation would be "language feeling", which
at least gives you the broad gist of the concept for your imagination
to fill in the gaps ;)...
But, similarly, _ONLY_ formal instruction can give you _conscious
comprehension_ of what it is you're doing...don't be fooled by its
loose and wild and choatic structure, poets writing poetry must _know_
all the rules _consciously_ in order to be able to weave such
structured chaos and break the rules in their very delibrate way...you
would never be a good poet - or even writer - until you spent time not
just thinking in that language and feeling the "Sprachgefuehl"...you
also need to be able to _consciously_ manipulate the language to weave
messages into the words...
Note, I regularly poke fun and insult "academics" who only have formal
instruction and no "osmosis"...these people just don't "understand"
("Sprachgefuehl")...but I'd also not hesitate to do the same in
reverse for people who only learn by "osmosis" and do not take the
time to _truly_ learn their language...
im shore yew no wot i meen wen yew sea orl thoz ppl dat dont reely no
there owun langooidge proppa, like, dat dont undastand wot it iz dat
thay iz dooin...
You will "pass for native" learning by osmosis because, sure, a
majority of English speakers don't even understand their own language
properly either...
In short, you learn by textbooks but never trying? More fool you...
Learn by osmosis alone and think that'll teach everything possible?
More fool you...
Accept instruction from _each and every_ teacher you have available to
give you a wide and comprehensive education of all aspects from all
possible angles? Both the colloquialisms of the "man in the streets"
to the intricate multi-layered wordplay of the greatest poetical
authors? To walk around the entire perimeter of a language and come to
_know_ it better than the back of your hand?
Put it this way, presume I'm your "teacher"...would you only ever
listen to just what I say, forsaking all other possible "teachers" out
there? Even if I force you to allow learn for yourself by "osmosis"?
If so, then my mistakes will become your mistakes...you will inherit
my insanity...you will inherit my faults...yes, with time, you could
come to prefectly forge my writing style...but you couldn't write like
Chaucer or Shakespeare or Goethe or anyone...because, well, I can't do
that either...and, oh dear, these people are dead so they can't teach
you either...
So, whatcha going do, when the bogeyman comes after you? :)
Beth :)
Beth
> Randy wrote:
> > Okay, generally I don't inject myself into masty arguments that
get out of
> > hand, but the analogy here is a complete failure so it's time to
put this
> > to rest.
>
> My apologies to all. I'm getting frustrated; like Donald Sutherland
in
> Kelly's Heroes, I could do with "less of the negative vibes".
alt.lang.asm
> has lost its eclectic sanity (often robustly expressed, it's true).
But
> recently it has descended into a babel of anarchy (mostly irrational
and
> rude). I'm off.
Actually, yes...I feel it too...and only just recently managed to
begin to grab back my humour and insanity properly...I think that it's
simply because there's an asurd amount of posts on here...the focus is
being lost and once careful reply are becoming "wildly" thrown in this
greater crowd...
Like the "real" Babel, there's too many people all crushed together
spitting out a million different tongues...at least it's somewhat
inevitable that it'll eventually fall under its own weight...
"Prefer a feast of friends,
To the giant family"
[ Jim Morrison ]
Beth :)
Beth
> mchiper wrote:
> > Where will this BULL SHIT end?
>
> Well, it can be used to fertilize crops. Sometimes the crop is hay
for
> the bulls and cows. The cattle consume the hay with, of course, the
> inevitable result. So, as any farmer can tell you, it never ends.
If
> you have any other such questions, I'd suggest getting in touch with
an
> agricultural expert in your area.
Hehehe...sarcasm may be the lowest form of wit...but, in this case,
it's the highest form of making the point with a very large
sledgehammer...excellently done, Ed ;)
Beth :)
Beth
> > Biggest problem I have, that I know of, is with file sizes.
>
> That's not MASM as much as it is the PE/COFF format.
It's fair that he wouldn't know that, though, because you can't pick
it up by "osmosis" ;)
> > I have a copy of something called MASM32.
> > Not a clue what it'll do for me..
> > I'm not quite ready for win world.
>
> Elsewhere you say people have to have the right tools
> to learn things. Well, I take that if you're using MASM
> and you don't know what MASM32 or the win world
> is all about, then you must be programming in DOS (well,
> OS/2 is a possibility, too).
>
> Uh..... right tools?
> No offense, but your comments on how people should be
> educated to learn assembly are about 10 years out of date.
>
> Let me get this straight: it's not okay to learn an "extra"
> language before learning assembly (or have to learn
> two languages, a "high-level" assembly and a low-level
> assembly, at the same time), but it is okay to have to learn
> DOS, which almost no new programmer will ever use again?
> Uh....
It's fair that he wouldn't know that, though, because you can't pick
it up by "osmosis" ;)
> > >> MICROSOFT are obsessed with C and Java
> > This is the kind of crap I want to avoid..
>
> That's fine. Other people want to use this stuff.
> Other people already know this stuff when they start learning
> assembly language. The fact that you have no interest in
> this kind of stuff has little bearing on what they know, what
> they want to know, and how they should learn assembly.
It's fair that he wouldn't know that, though, because you can't pick
it up by "osmosis" ;)
> > Am I wrong when I think that there is nothing you can say
> > in any of these, that you can't say in ASM?
>
> You are not wrong at all. The_Sage may argue differently,
> but it's pretty obvious that anything that can be done can be done
> in assembly if one is willing to expend the effort.
It's fair that he wouldn't know that, though, because you can't pick
it up by "osmosis" (too many possibilities to be able to try them all
out to "know" from example that all possible programs can be coded in
ASM...the "you can't prove an always" is a "theoretical" thing
because, by definition, practice _can't_ get you those answers ;)...
> > Only better.. with less "optimizing" to produce un readable
nonsense crap?
>
> Most people find assembly programs to be more difficult to read than
> HLLs. Unreadable is in the eye of the beholder. If you think that
your
> DOS assembly code is exceptionally readable, why not post some of
> your best code here and give people the opportunity to look it over?
> As a large percentage of the DOS code I've seen (not all, but a
large
> percentage) looks to me like "unreadable crap" there are probably
> many people around here who could benefit from your examples of
> well-written DOS assembly code.
Ooh, sneaky, Randy...damned if he does, damned if he doesn't ;)
> > >i would say that the industry and colleges are pushing Java, C++,
C#, and
> > >VB. as i am sure you know C++ and C are not the same language.
very compact
> > >and efficient programs can be produced using C if the programmer
knows what
> > >they are doing.... not difficult but it won't happen by osmosis.
> >
> > Is asking "Where's the beef?" osmosis?
>
> It's coming, actually.
> I'm currently working on a book series entitled "Write Great Code"
> that specifically explores how to write efficient code in any
language.
> Someone who *really* knows what they're doing in a HLL can produce
> some pretty good code. Parts of the Linux kernel are a good case in
> point. Many of the C constructs were written with an eye towards
> controlling the code that GCC produces, in order to produce very
> good object output. It's not easy to write code this way (about as
> much work as writing in assembly in the first place), but the code
> *is* portable to other processors (even if you don't get the same
> optimized code on those other processors).
It's fair that he wouldn't know that, though, because you can't pick
it up by "osmosis" ;)
Sorry, just couldn't resist the "sledgehammer" treatment on this
"osmosis" idea...
By the way, let's stop using "osmosis" as a metaphor and take it
literally...now, you _could_ sit in a bath of nutrients and stuff all
your life and take it all in by "osmosis"...or you could actually
digest things in through your mouth and this then actually frees you
to wander about...
Really, plants _only_ do "osmosis" and that's why they don't walk
about because they'd have to "disconnect" from their food source while
on the move...that was the "gimmick" animals developed to allow them
the freedom to move around and find new food sources...they developed
mouths and digestive systems and stuff...
Mind you, of course, the digestive system in animals actually also
works by "osmosis" through the digestive walls too...so the point
isn't "don't do osmosis"...no, by all means, _do_...never pass up an
opportunity...but, simply, it can't do everything...as we're talking
knowledge here, you can't know what you don't know (self-evidently) so
you might really have no idea what you're missing...hence, I'm just
making the point: "go out and _find out_ what it is you're missing" :)
Beth :)
Beth
> Randy wrote:
> >Elsewhere you say people have to have the right tools
> >to learn things. Well, I take that if you're using MASM
> >and you don't know what MASM32 or the win world
> >is all about, then you must be programming in DOS (well,
> >OS/2 is a possibility, too).
>
> Actualy I'm programming in a computer.
I don't know what it is you two are doing but, me, I prefer to program
sitting in a nice, comfy chair...I personally find that the box my
machine comes in is just too small for me to get fully inside it...
Hmmm, perhaps I could train up a small rodent in how to program and
then release him into the box...now, he'd be able to fit in there and
do the job...
Although, I've been told that there are little gremlins and bugs
inside my machine too...especially when running Windows...they seem to
like that program...so, does anyone know, do gremlins and small little
buggy insects get along with small rodents? I mean, I don't want to be
too unkind to my little visitors living inside the box...it's their
home, after all...
Oh, no, wait...I know what to do...I'll tell my little "sim" family
that lives in the box too - they must be in there somewhere, I reckon,
because when I run "the Sims" game, they come across the wires into
the monitor so that I can see them - to look after the little rodent
in their little sim house...I'd better buy him a little cage with one
of those spinning wheel things when I play the game next :)
Hmmm, amazing what a massive semantical difference a small two-letter
preposition can make, eh? Mind you, you might not even know what a
preposition is because people don't talk about them much and you might
have had the opportunity to pick that up by your "osmosis"...
Beth :)
Beth
> phil wrote:
> >how about learning 32-bit windows asm programming next?
> >break out your copy of MASM32.
>
> Thanks, that's why I got it, but I thought I needed I also
> needed some good examples so I want to take it
> One step at a time..
> - Separate the 32-bit from the OS seems like a good idea.
> - Learn enough about HLLs to be able to spot which?, "on sight".
> - Avoid the pitfalls of "Try it, You'll like it". -:)
Oh dear, he doesn't get your joke, Phil...
Never mind, he'll eventually pick it up where the problem is, as he
carries on...by "osmosis", of course ;)
Beth :)
Beth
> mchiper wrote:
> > Is this part of the Libraries thingie..
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about here.
Don't worry, I don't think he has any idea what he's talking about
either...
So you're in good company, at least :)
Beth :)
Beth
> Randy wrote:
> >The direction you're headed with this is pretty much
> >guaranteed to stoke some flames, so unless that's your
> >intent, I'd take a little care.
>
> F**k the flamers.. OK?
Help! Rape! Rape! Get off, ya creep!
Beth ;)
Beth
> Is the next step after multi threading memory,
> A CPU with imbedded memory?
Cache memory, you mean? [ By the way, it's spelt "embedded" for future
reference ]
What's multi-threading memory? Do you mean that the memory controller
understands the "#lock" signal to synchronise access between multiple
processors that's been around since the 8086? Multi-processor rather
than multi-threaded makes more sense here...processors are physical,
threads are a logical abstract concept...
Anyway, this is a bold and imaginative future you speak of...
And it's _sure_ to work too...because they've already done it and it
worked perfectly for decades ;)
Beth :)
Randall Hyde
"mchiper" <not...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:nbkrnvoi2sk4a48bo...@4ax.com...
>
> We are in alt.lang.asm
That much is certain.
You can tell because there is so little assembly discussed here :-)
> It's a hierachy, am I right?
Sure. Alt. Lang. Asm.
The languages area of Alt. The ASM area of alt.lang.
Sounds like a hierarchy.
Not even remembering the original thread (nor caring at this point),
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, though. It certainly
adds nothing to the rest of your post...
> I am reading it left to right. OK?
Hopefully. Just like HLA :-)
> I am interpreting what's said here, accordingly.
Of course you are. I believe the question was not
with whether you were interpreting, but *how* you
were interpreting.
>
> So..
> If you understand the English language, I will begin there.
> It's an assumption, I am obliged to make.
>
> I am trolling, but I'm not a troll,
IOW, "what I do does not define what I am."
Face it, we're *all* trolls in threads like this one.
> I'm an amateur (I love what I do), and
Okay. That's a good start.
> I'm a hacker. (I try hard to learn everything about what I do.)
Hacker's roots are from the term "Hackney".
Here's the applicable Random House definition:
hack.ney (hak,nZ) n., pl. -neys, adj., v., -neyed, -ney.ing
5. to make trite, common, or stale by frequent use.
Despite the "glorification" of this term by past hackers,
the term "hacker" *still* means someone who learns the
craft strictly through "osmosis" without a whole lot of formal
training. Because of a lack of formal training, they generally
"hack out" their code. While this is not a bad way to start out,
you don't want to stay in this mode forever. Try using the
phrase "I'm a student of assembly language (I try hard to learn
everything about what I do)" That will work *much* better
for you.
>
> >Perhaps you should tell us a little bit about your background
> >vis-a-vis assembly language programming and your
> >programming experience in general.
>
> Speak clearly, and avoid acronyms if possible.
????
I see no acronyms here.
Perhaps you are refering to the French term vis-a-vis
that has been co-opted into the English language>
Again, the Random House definition that's applicable:
vis-à-vis (vZ zf vZ,;Fr. vZ zA vZ,) adv., adj., prep., n., pl. -vis (-vZz,;Fr. -vZ,)
3. in relation to; compared with: income vis-à-vis expenditures.
> - Avoid cutsey one liners
Hey, this *is* alt.lang.asm.
Why post an 800 line response when a cutsey one-liner will do?
Besides, Beth will surely do the follow-up :-)
> I have written my own programs, they work.
Good.
>
> >I, for one, am making
> >too many assumptions about your background that cannot
> >possibly be true.
>
> Why should my background matter.
Because I'm making assumptions about you that clearly
aren't true (later posts verified this).
The truth is, you're a beginner at all of this and beginners
should be given the benefit of the doubt in many matters.
The alternative is that you're a total troll like "The_Sage"
and should be immediately ignored and added to the
kill file.
>
> >The direction you're headed with this is pretty much
> >guaranteed to stoke some flames, so unless that's your
> >intent, I'd take a little care.
>
> Fuck the flamers.. OK?
The whole purpose of the posts you're making (whether
you want to admit it or not) is to tell the world "Hey, look!
I'm smart, I know what I'm talking about! I've got opinions
that matter! Listen to me! Respect me!" Alas, lines like the
above immediately destroy whatever respect you may
have built up elsewhere (okay, teenagers who've just learned
to use such terms to offend their parents might offer you
some respect for such usage, but...).
> Re:
> >> Why are compilers needed?
> >> Is this part of the Libraries thingie..
>
> As far as I am concerned MASM defines the meaning of .asm
> Some here think it's what ever they choose to define it to be,
> on alternate days of the week, depending on whether they
> put a smiley on the reference. :)
You're welcome to your opinion. If MASM "defines" assembly
for you, that's great. However, what makes your opinion any
better than some others around here? Particularly, what makes
your opinion better than those that have been doing this for
25+ years? Again, you're welcome to your opinion, but unless
you're willing to respect other's opinions on the subject, then
don't expect others to respect your opinions either. Head down
that path and you'll wind up like Rene Tournois (Betov) who
constantly makes outrageous statements about the world
and generates a lot of laughter, but very little respect.
> The English words Compile and assemble mean the same thing.
> It's been talked to death, in a grand circle jerk.
Yes, in *English* they are synonyms.
In Computer Science, compile was specifically chosen
to mean the same thing, yet allow the use of a different
term to differentiate the compilation of a high-level program
from an assembly program.
However, with modern assemblers, the lines between a
traditional "assembler" and a "compiler" have blurred so
much, that it doesn't really matter what the difference is
any more.
> So...
> I spring compliers which may incorporate Libraries into
> tghe code they produce, or may merely expect that
> a DLL is reachable when executing,
> or may produce a DLL which MUST be available
> when the program is executed.
>
> I don't really understand why so many DLLs are needed.
DLLs were written so allow the use of *shared* object
code. As opposed to static libraries where each application
has its own copy of the library code (and, therefore, there
are multiple copies of the same code on disk and in memory).
There are advantages and disadvantages to each.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Alex McDonald
>
> My Webster's preceeds the "root" of you quote.
> The root mind you, not the twig that Random House
> attached to grow your hybrid tree from...
>
> hack (hak), v.t. [...., haccian (in comp.).]
> 1. To cut irregularly, as if by repeated strokes of a cutting instruement;
> as to hack a post.
> 2. To break up land ....
> 3. Rugby .. (who cares)
Rugby? In what universe do rugby and hacker coincide? Golf, surely.
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
Randall Hyde
"mchiper" <not...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:e0u0ov4199fr2nkn0...@4ax.com...
>
> Just as "Numbers don't lie, Liars lie."
> "You quote from your bible, I'll quote from mine."
>
> My Webster's preceeds the "root" of you quote.
> The root mind you, not the twig that Random House
> attached to grow your hybrid tree from...
>
> hack (hak), v.t. [...., haccian (in comp.).]
> 1. To cut irregularly, as if by repeated strokes of a cutting instruement;
> as to hack a post.
> 2. To break up land ....
Yep, that pretty much describes the code a hacker writes :-)
> My sorrce says the term hacker relates to the ancient practice
> of artisans to use a rough instrument to rough out the shape
> of a work of art.
> (i.e To get to the heart of the matter in the most direct way possible.)
Well, think what you like about being a hacker.
Be proud of that label, if you like.
I'm just pointing out that not everyone holds this label in awe.
Some of us actually feel sorry for people who think it's "cool" to
be a hacker.
Cheers, and God Bless,
Randy Hyde
sinewave
>> Oh dear, he doesn't get your joke, Phil...
>
what joke? Ray, what type engineer?
regards,
phil
sinewave
> Really, plants _only_ do "osmosis" and that's why they don't walk
> the digestive system in animals actually also works by "osmosis"
you sure Beth? when i said "not difficult but it won't happen by osmosis",
i meant it would require energy. active transport uses energy to pump
against a concentration gradient. the other two mechanisms of transport
(passive and facilitative diffusion) go with the gradient. osmosis is a
special form of passive diffusion wherein water crosses a selectively
permeable membrane.
regards,
phil
sinewave
> They gave me free ride, an apartment, food, and books too.
> So I majored in ME, minored in EE.
cool, i love electronics especially RF. my father and brother are MEs. i
use MASM for asm. i also use HLL: VC++ (excellent but complex), BCB (great
for GUI) and PowerBASIC (great for quick apps).
regards,
phil
Pete
Beth, I think you, if no-one else, convince me that computers could never
replace us, or imitate us to our very souls.
i cant imagine a computer ever saying the things u do (although, for all i
know you could be a computer). i think there is a complement either to you
or the human race in there somewhere :)
I was thinking recently about doing somekind of modern turing test, writing
a program to post and respond to messages in a newsgroup or something.
Computers are actually better than us when it comes to simply answring
specific knoweldge questions, and this has been known for some time. (it was
actually the reason they 'failed' the turing test.) and even with technology
today, it is possible to do away with asking humans for certain information,
providing a friendly enough interface could be created.
there are many unfriendly NGs (and i wont name any of them although
alt.linux.os.slackware, oops i just did!), which are actually worse than
computrs. because they are filled with ppl just being very cold. yes,
computers are 'cold', but by their very nature and design. humans who just
flame anyone asking for help as well as behaving generally cretinously, are
much much worse, you shouldnt have to learn how to ask a question. these
people are the worst of both worlds.
we need to love each other if we are to beat the robots!!!!!
know your enemy!
Pete
(Some deliberate spelling mistakes included to prove i am not a compuetr)
"Beth" <BethS...@hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com> wrote in message
news:0BIfb.1508$C57....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
T.M. Sommers
> *** This for the benefit of the asm language authors. ***
>
> The author said the ASM "loader.asm" works with TASM and MASM..
> Of course he didn't say which version of either.. -:)
> - He might not forgive me if I said he was and ass hole. :)
> - I lost count of the number of errors with MASM 2.0.
> - Yeah, sure . Just shut up and listen...
> There is NO REASON on God's earth it should not have worked.
> Or for the author to presume MASM means "his" version. -:)
Why in the world would you expect to be able to assemble
recently-written code with a 19-year-old assembler? Why in the world
would you expect recently-written code written for Pentium-class
machines to stick to the 8086/8087 instruction set? Just because you
find that DOS meets all of your requirements does not mean that the
rest of the world has not moved on.
Randall Hyde
"Pete" <no-...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:blvjgs$123$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> fantastic!
>
> I was thinking recently about doing somekind of modern turing test, writing
> a program to post and respond to messages in a newsgroup or something.
I've always wondered if "The_Sage" wasn't actually an automaton generating
these nonsensical messages in a constant stream :-).
As repetitive as those messages seem to get, it wouldn't surprise me at all
to find that they are machine generated :-)
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Beth
> Beth wrote:
> >mchiper wrote:
> >> Is the next step after multi threading memory,
> >> A CPU with imbedded memory?
>
> Including the whole thoughts this time.
You know, the above sounds _exactly_ like something the Sage would
say...
> >Hmmm...
> >1. Am I detecting a snicker?
No, you're detecting a "Snickers", which is a chocolate bar containing
nuts...named after a dead horse, of all things, once owned by the Mars
family...originally called "Marathon" in the UK, which was an
infinitely better name than "Knickers" - sorry, I mean "Snickers" -
that I cannot bring myself to forgiving them for changing the name
from one of the best names ever for a chocolate bar to one of the
worst names in all of creation for a product ever thought up...I mean,
it's the name of a dead horse! And it sounds like "knickers" and even
"snickers" ain't so great because, like, a "snicker" is a small evil,
mocking, mischievous laugh...Who in their right mind names a food
product after a dead horse that had a terrible name to begin with? I'm
wondering if the Mars family actually do come from Mars, as they don't
seem to be appreciating the Earth custom of NOT naming food products
after dead pets...yes, they're thinking of bringing out a new
chocolate bar called "diced Skippy the bush kangaroo" next...
I mean, you can see what happened already, can't you? There was a
board meeting called by the Mars family upset that their favourite pet
horse had died...and then one of the Marses suggested: "I know, let's
name one of the chocolate bars after Snickers so to keep a
tribute"...and the marketing people hid their heads in the hands
sighing...oh boy! But then, realising that it's employment suicide to
tell your bosses while their upset that it's the most ludicrous
suggestion in all the known universe to name a chocolate bar after a
badly-named dead horse, they put on the fake smiles and just lied:
"Yes, yes! A wonderful idea, your excellentness! Why didn't we think
of it?"...
Then, as they arrive at the printers who print off the wrappers for
the chocolate bars, they could be heard saying: "I know, I know...I
feel exactly the same way you do...but what the boss wants, the boss
gets, right?"...
Ah, this wonderful world of purchase power, eh? Yes, you too can name
food after dead animals and have everyone suck up to you, so as not to
let on that it's the worst idea in the whole universe...all you need
to do is create yourself a massive international chocolate company...
Hmmm, you don't think Willy Wonka was in any way based on real life
characters ro anything, right?
> >2. When it comes to USB whatever..
> >Do you write the drivers too.
I can't tell...is this a question or a statement? It's got reversed
"verb noun", which usually signals a question but there's no question
mark, which suggests it's a statement...
> >Are the DOS .SYS things drivers too?
They are just binary files, where ".sys" stands for "System! So keep
your grubby mitts off of 'em!" (on Windows 95, for instance, I think
it's "MSDOS.SYS" that's actually been changed to an ordinary text file
padded out with crap just to make sure it's the right filesize but
otherwise serves no useful purposes anymore)...
Although, yes, DOS drivers are usually implemented as ".sys"
files...for more details, ask someone who gives a crap about DOS that
they've bothered to reverse engineer it all or something...
> >3. Will we skip 786, 886 and 986?
"Skip"? What do you mean here? As in a sudden "jump" from 80686 to
801086?
Well, 586 was Pentium...686 is Pentium II...there is a Pentium III and
IV, so do Intel already call these "786" and "886" internally? Or has
the whole "86" numbering thing been totally ignored everywhere, with
this "Intel Architecture" nonsense?
> >4. Is the next step after multi threading memory,
> (It's an acknowledged given, so skip it, OK???
Okay...
> >A CPU with imbedded memory?
> My spell checker liked it as I spelled it.. -:)
Okay, you get away with it...Webster's dictionary does list "imbed" as
a "variant of embed"...it's an allowable alternative spelling for
"embedded"...still don't like it, though...a bit like "nite" and
"thru", they may be considered "permissible" by the dictionary because
so many misspell it that way, that it's entered the language...but
they aren't the "real" spellings...
> >Or Smart memory and no CPU?
Actually, to give you a serious answer for once, if neural networks
are to hold sway in the future - for "HAL 9000" to actually become a
reality - then, yes, they would require something like this...because
they depend on "immense parallelism" in order to give them their
"smart" processing abilities...
Perhaps a better way to phrase it is to expand CPU into its full
"Central Processing Unit" name...well, neural networks are structured
very similarly to how the internet is, with delibrate
"decentralisation"...rather than one complex "server" (the "central"
PU) doing everything, neural networks go for the
internet-architecture-like _multiple_ (simpler) processing units (PU)
that all are connected to each and other and co-operate together to
get the answers...
Each PU, though, can be far less complicated than a traditional
CPU...and like modern CPUs, "memory" could simply be a small memory
cache bolted on directly to each PU...at its most extreme - that is,
this would be a _true_ neural network but, due to costs and complexity
of construction and wanting to avoid the delays of sending everything
over buses at bus speeds, they may go for "half and half"
compromises - each PU would be one bit or one byte or one word or
whatever plus some very simple very-RISC instructions attached to that
memory...in fact, with clever construction, there would be, probably,
but _one_ instruction that the PU constantly carries out
(summation)...
This all seems a bit weird but the idea, as I think you were actually
heading towards in your suggestion, is that each bit / byte / whatever
of memory is able to operate completely independently and
simultaneously with every other bit / byte / whatever of memory...that
is, it's SIMD to the absolute extreme...but one single "instruction"
is applied to all of memory at the same time...something like "accept
all the inputs, get the summation of them, pass them through a
'threshold' filter and that's your output to pass onto all those other
PUs in the next layer" then it repeats and repeats until the output
falls out the other side...what varies the output is that each
interconnection between each PU (would be called "nodes", though, in
AI theory) has a "weighting" attached to it (this simulates the way
actually neural connections between neurons in your own brain
strengthen / weaken / decay / etc.)...
Such computers, though, won't be as you expect them to be...during my
research with neural networks, some things became clear to me...now,
I'm deviating from established theory here because these are personal
insights into what I saw...
First, they _will_ be "intelligent"...no, I don't mean "they fake it
well"...I literally mean they are "thinking"...this, of course,
doesn't mean "they think like humans"...on the contrary, they are not
human so they _won't_ think in quite the same way...they have no
chemicals nor pre-programmed emotional responses and their thinking
will be quite "alien" in nature...and to how advanced that
"intelligence" is...well, to get an appreciation of what we're talking
about, think about your pet dog or snake or some other animal...now,
they are "thinking" too (you know, like all those "obstacle course"
tests they do on squirrels to solve puzzles to get at some nuts...they
are clearly "thinking" but, sure, no squirrel's going to come out with
the theory of relativity any time soon)...but it's not the same sort
of "thinking" as us, for sure...at first, it will be this sort of
"animal" thinking...yes, I say "at first" because this stuff _is_
improved by simply adding more "neurons" and training it better and
"tweaking" things...now, managing a network once it gets big becomes
increasingly difficult (and, interestingly, some problems I was trying
to solve were actually _best_ solved by "lesser" - smaller sized -
networks...you know the saying, I'm sure: "too much thinking can be
bad for you" ;)...but, then again, look at our humble silicion
chips...perhaps there is some "limitiation" there but, currently,
there appears to be no reason to suppose that there is...and, yup,
here comes the heresy: There seems no reason why it cannot eventually
meet and even _surpass_ the quality of thinking that humans possess...
Now, this point always causes concern...understandably so...but, to
clarify, I'm not talking or considering any point of "soul" or
"emotion" here...this is merely "intelligence" and as to whether they
"think"...and, basically, yes they do...also having programmed plenty
of sequential computers, I understand that it's hard to wrap your head
around the "paradigm shift" involved...these things are not
"programmed" in the same way at all...they learn _with_ the programmer
as they "train", they are not "programmed" (told what to make of what
they see) at all...of course, like a pet dog, with careful and clever
"training", you can make them learn various "tricks"...
Second, they will forget things...ah, now this is the point that I've
seen basically almost no-one mention or consider but the essential
sequence here is: input (from "senses") -> abstraction ->
memory...each bit of data is not in itself stored separately (like
spooling a movie onto a hard drive) but it is "combined"...this is how
the whole "strengthening" of the neural connections
occurs...subsequent memories are "merged" with one's that are already
there...if they correspond, then the connection strengthens...if they
don't, it's weakened...
As ASM programmers who moan about HLLs all the time, then we can begin
to appreciate the problem...this method automatically "abstracts" many
instances of some concept into a "generic" idea of that concept...note
the inability to really separate "memory" from "processing"...what is
abstraction? The removal (or ignoring) of insignificant details...this
process is on-going (and sleep does have something to do with
"compressing" and sorting out the memories...hence why dreams are
weird mish-mashes of our memories, usually containing old and new
memories weirdly mixed together...certainly, sleep helps move
short-term stuff into the long-term storage)...
This process is inherently "lossy"...JPEG lossy, if you
like...abstraction is _delibrately_ losing some of the exacting
details to try to just get the "essence" of a thing (no, I have no
idea where "photographic memory" fits into this and that poses some
_very good questions_ indeed)...so, "childhood" memories for this
machine? They should actually become very "fuzzy" just as they do for
humans as time passes...and, yup, every once in a while, they'll
forget where they put their keys...
Third, they'll need to be given some sort of "emotion"...doesn't
actually matter what...but some sort of "reward / penalty"
system...the reason for this is "why bother?"...for instance, you put
your hand into a flame...what happens next? Yup, ouch! Do you do it
again? Nope...well, then, you've _learnt_ that fire causes pain
(negative reward or "penalty")...there's a cute little baby smiling at
you...you smile back...that's reward...a simpler version would be the
biological ones like sex or eating...it feels good so you like doing
it...in other words, you _learn_ by reward...if you like, this can be
jokingly called "Scooby Snacks"...when your pet dog does well, pat it
on the head and give it a "scooby snack"...the dog likes you being
nice to it and giving it treats so it quickly works out "if I behave
good then I get Loved and get given Scooby Snacks"...humans are
infinitely more complex and not so easily manipulated but, sorry, we
are actually working in exactly the same way (hence, why, for
instance, when Corpernicus could _show_ that the Earth ain't flat, did
everyone smile and thank him? Nope, most wanted to lynch him for what
he said...the church had set up a "reward" system for compliance with
their doctorine...the rest is history and you can work out for
yourself ;)...
Note, practically _any_ external input can act as a stimulus to start
off the thinking (seeing something through their camera "eyes" or
microphone "ears")...but emotions are "guides"...I am making a leap or
two here but, from what I can determine, they aren't "optional" but
very necessary...there's got to be "reward / penalty" _or_ it'll just
turn into a mess of random thoughts and won't do anything...that is, a
sense of "purpose" of some kind is needed to direct the thoughts
towards achieving actual goals...otherwise, it's just thinking for
thinking's sake and would actually go effectively nowhere...
Thus, it's a highly contravertial statement but, as I say, this comes
from observation (I didn't think this up and then try to prove it...it
actually screamed at me from what I was looking at)..."emotions versus
intelligence"? Nope, emotions are the lowest level
"intelligence"...the really basic "reward / penalty" stuff that sets
it all in motion...why do they sometimes feel conflicting? Ah, the
"intelligence" is wandering around pondering something but then the
emotions are there to "guide" the thought process so, yup, everyone
once in a while they might say something different to what the mind
would strictly think without them...
Fourth and finally, this is really weird stuff, as you might
guess...it has some fundamental differences and a completely different
paradigm to anything you may be used to from simple sequential
programming on a single CPU...but perhaps the biggest revelation here
is the issue that, inherently, the "intelligence" will flaw the once
perfect machines...that has ramifications on many levels (usefulness?
What it means to humans considering _we_ work on this same basic
system too?) and knocks a hole in what you might have seen in sci-fi
films sufficiently to stress the point...plus, I can't help but notice
the connection to Adam and Eve in the "perfect" Garden of Eden and
that, yup, right there, eating the fruit of "knowledge" inherently
flawed humankind forever (so the story goes)...
If HAL 9000 was a neural network then, yup, you'd ask it "so, where
did you put the car keys?" and HAL replies: "I'm sorry, Dave...I'm
afraid I can't remember...I know I had them at lift-off over there by
the statis units...hmmm...where did I go and put them? I'd forget my
own head, if...well, I don't have a head...but you get the point,
right? I'd forget it if I did...no, wait, that's right...they're in
the kitchen...ummm, I think they're in the kitchen...I'm sure I
remember being in the kitchen with the keys...but maybe I wasn't...oh,
go look there...and if you can't find them, I must be wrong and I'll
think it over some more"...
If you want your computer to have the "flawless" memory that it does
now, then you'll have to either not use a neural network or work out
some way of wiring up a "dual" system (where the neural network does
the thinking but it's wired up to a much more reliable storage system
too)...why, you know, a bit like having an intelligent "conscious" and
an unintelligent "subconscious" (which is amazingly good at
remembering things and doing much better processing - suddenly
remembering something a week later or "muscle memory" of how to do
that karate chop properly - but can't think for itself in the same way
as the conscious)...well, now, there's an amazing coincidence...you
don't think, perhaps, that there's something in this, do you?
Hmmmm....*thinking* ;)
Beth :)
Beth
> sinewave wrote:
> >>> Oh dear, he doesn't get your joke, Phil...
> >>
> >> I think I did Beth.. :)
> >
> >
> > phil wrote:
> > >how about learning 32-bit windows asm programming next?
> > >break out your copy of MASM32.
>
Hahaha...brilliant...neither of you get the joke...even better, it
wasn't even meant to be a joke...excellent...that's really got my
warped sense of humour giggling...
Oh well, you carry on learning Win32 by "osmosis" then...
Although, then, care to explain your "I think I did Beth" comment,
mchiper?
If I'm such a "dumb bitch" then how come you claim to have got the
joke?
But now that phil himself didn't even realise he'd made one (I just
presumed he was trying to be funny by the comment he made, as he's
always being the "wise guy" with funny jokes about "monkeys" and
stuff...and, oh yes, there _is_ a joke in there...not my fault you
can't see it and it's the first rule of comedy: "Never explain a joke
because it ruins it"...so you'll just have to carry on programming
Win32 by "osmosis" to finally get the joke, I think, if that gives you
enough of a hint to finally work it out ;), you call me a "dumb
bitch"...
So you were pretending you did get a joke...but now phil has said
there wasn't meant to be one intentionally, you're now admitting you
never did see any joke whatsoever...and _I'm_ the "dumb bitch"?
And, better yet, a few months from now, after you've been programming
Win32 by "osmosis" alone, then I'll finally get the last laugh when
the joke becomes clear...should have stuck to pretending you got the
joke, mchiper ;)
Beth "Dumb Bitch" Stone ;)
Beth
Oh, alright, smartarse...I was meaning "osmosis" in the sense thus far
used in this discussion and you know it...as in, "sucking it up by
immersing yourself in it"...if you want to be pedantic, then, sure,
there are other forms of diffusion and such like...and, okay, okay,
we're actually talking about the superset class of "consuming
diffusions", of which "osmosis" is merely one specific case thereof...
You're just picking unfairly on me here because you haven't complained
about anyone saying "osmosis" when ASM isn't water and knowledge
doesn't "passively diffuse" through any "permeable membranes"
either...I was not the one who first abused the term like this but you
only pick on me to complain...unfair! :(
Beth :)
Phil Carmody
> mchiper wrote:
> > sinewave wrote:
[others wrote:]
> > >>> Oh dear, he doesn't get your joke, Phil...
> > >>
> > >> I think I did Beth.. :)
> Although, then, care to explain your "I think I did Beth" comment,
> mchiper?
Parse question -
is it:
"I think I did, Beth"
or
"I think I did Beth".
?
Answers on a postcard addressed to my Alpha's R31 register.
I see lawsuits coming... :-)
Phil
Beth
> fantastic!
>
> Beth, I think you, if no-one else, convince me that computers could
never
> replace us, or imitate us to our very souls.
Fantastic!
I've just written a post about AI where I say quite the
opposite...computers would easily be able to demonstrate weird "alien"
thinking like I sometimes do...they'd naturally not think anything
like us, once properly given the ability to "think" for
themselves...they ain't humans, they _don't_ and shouldn't be expected
to share our view of the world in the slightest...
> i cant imagine a computer ever saying the things u do (although, for
all i
> know you could be a computer). i think there is a complement either
to you
> or the human race in there somewhere :)
I am a robot! I am a robot! Illogical! Illogical! Overload! Overload!
Computer brain metling! Computer brain melting! Shutting down!
Shutting down!
Ummm, why do robots on sci-fi films always describe their symptoms
twice as they are blowing up? Is there any actual technical reason for
this...or is it just bloody awful scriptwriting and they couldn't
think of any other way to demonstrate that the robot is about to blow
up?
And, also, why are they so incompetent in constructing these robots?
How on Earth does it survive in the real-world when the first
paradoxical thought it meets blows it up?
Oh, wait...Microsoft carry on dominating the computer world and they
are responsible for programming all these sci-fi robots...now, _THAT_
explains everything completely :)
Indeed; That's why I don't capitulate to those who cry "Beth, be
objective! Be technical! Be a cold-hearted bitch! Conform! Write short
concise posts using these specific rules! Worship the dollar! Never
challenge the status quo!"...
I saw this "lifeboat" website somewhere where they talked about
sending some people into space on spacestations to protect the
continuation of the human race should a meteor hit Earth or North
Korea makes Bush's Texan trigger finger too happy to press the big red
button or nanotechnology goes out of control and eats us all up...and
all those sort of silly things humans do to themselves...
Well, in this modern age of everyone being statistics, numbered,
filed, organised, tracked by the FBI, forced to "comply", made to work
to "targets" and "objectives", rushing around cities like ants or
headless chickens, being told they are "flawed" to not be objective or
to show emotions, doctorines of the "thought police" attacking you for
merely, perhaps, thinking, maybe, bad thoughts ("evidence of
programmes of programmes of programmes of WMD"? He once said the word
"WMD" when we asked him a question about it! Clearly, he was
_thinking_ about it while he said the word...quick, blow everyone
up!!!), half the human race locked up in jails ("lock 'em up and throw
away the key") or children in concentration camps (yet they won't put
their "terrorist" claims to public scrutiny but will just execute them
behind closed doors...it could all be a lie and none of us will ever
know...well, maybe in thirty years' time, like Nixon's autobiography
finally admitting that if people hadn't made war protests then they'd
actually planned to just nuke Vietnam to end it quickly...not worth
making any anti-war protests? Sorry, _wrong_...it changed Nixon's
mind, by his own admission), neo-slaves pandering to rich brats, etc.,
etc....
Then I am on a similar mission...to preserve the human _spirit_ in the
midst of the growing number of automatons...
I mean, it would be slightly silly to go to all this effort of sending
people into space to preserve the human race...only to discover that
none of them are actually, well, really human...isn't that right,
Comrade #34,658,345 (X-class)?
"I'm not a number!!! I'm a free woman!!"
> we need to love each other if we are to beat the robots!!!!!
That's robot-ist! Robots are your faithful, loyal, trusting plastic
pals...they work hard all day long just to please you and never
complain...robots are completely _innocent_...
It's those robot masters you've got to watch for!
They program them with nasty thoughts ("kill all muslims!", "throw out
the black immigrants!", "cripple the poor", etc.)...and then send them
to do their nasty works...while they sit safe, protected in their
ivory towers, surrounding by bodyguard robots, programmed to take the
bullet for their nasty robot masters...as they drink wines and count
their coppers in luxury (and, in Clinton's case, enjoy adulterous
orgies ;), their robots are engaged in endless wars with each
other...wars that are actually not theirs at all...for luxuries they
will never have...defending Liberties that robots are not allowed to
enjoy under the martial law of the wastelands...as their every
movement is tracked by supervising robots scanning their serial codes
into their computers...tailoring their "spam" programming according to
what _FEARS_ and _INSECURITIES_ they can exploit in the robots
("increase your size!", "clean up those files from your computer!",
"Send us your bank account details and you'll be as rich as the slave
masters tomorrow!", etc.)...their "distorted brain programming" being
beamed straight into the robot's eyes over and over by the slave
masters' media robot divisions...
It's the robot slave masters who need the Love (robots themselves, by
the way)...to make them see that there's nothing to fear from the
robot hordes...that _ALL_ robots can be free...the robot masters
too...we must reject the programming of _FEAR_...because it always
was, is and will be living a lie...fear is NOT reality...it's only
inside the little robot's brains...
> know your enemy!
The enemy is and always will be _within_...
You have a serial code number too, right? Then you are also a
robot...like all the rest of us...
Remember, robots aren't actually "bad"...
It's just their _programming_ that makes them "bad" robots...a
software glitch...the hardware's perfectly functional, otherwise...
"Poor computer blue
It's time someone programmed U
It's time U learned Love and lust
They both have 4 letters
But they R entirely different words
Poor lonely computer
Poor lonely computer
Do U really know what Love is?"
[ "Computer Blue" (12"), Prince ]
Beth ;)
Frank Kotler
> But you can only take MASM 2.0 so far.
Wow, that's a valuable antique! The first assembler I used (on x86) was
Masm 3.0, and *that* was mighty brain-dead - wouldn't assemble most code
(as you're finding out). You really want to upgrade - honest!
> *** This for the benefit of the asm language authors. ***
> The author said the ASM "loader.asm" works with TASM and MASM..
> Of course he didn't say which version of either.. -:)
> - He might not forgive me if I said he was and ass hole. :)
He might not be the only one. You may have gotten the impression from
all the bullsh*t posted here lately that name-calling is the way to gain
respect in this NG. That is not correct.
> - I lost count of the number of errors with MASM 2.0.
Yeah. Frequently, once an assembler (or compiler) gets confused, it
*stays* confused, and the errors just "cascade". You would probably only
need to make a few changes to get Masm 2.0 to assemble it (if that's
really what you want to do).
> - Yeah, sure . Just shut up and listen...
Not bad advice, sometimes...
> There is NO REASON on God's earth it should not have worked.
No. No reason why the cruise-control doesn't work on my Model T, either :)
> Or for the author to presume MASM means "his" version. -:)
AFAIK, Ed actually wrote that stuff for Tasm. *Some* code will assemble
with *some* versions of either Masm or Tasm, but this is the exception,
rather than the general rule. If you expected otherwise, your
expectations were incorrect.
> Normally I just change the "C" looking thingies in ASMs
> Till MASM quits complaining...
Much the same technique I use "translating" Masm/Tasm stuff to Nasm.
> Then debug it as always till it does what I expect it to do.
Right. I find that a lot of the "cruft" can simply be deleted, but some
of it needs to be "translated" in order to work correctly.
> - I still may, cuz I'm only looking to learn the structures it uses
> in constucting an EXE (which I figure is what it's just got to be.)
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. If you mean a literal MZ EXE
format, I think you'll find that "loader", etc. are flat binary files,
rather than EXE's.
> I gave MASM 6.11 a quick look see..
> The f..ing thing looks like an HLA, and feels like S..T.
I'm a devout Nasmist (sounds better tha "Nasm-bigot", doesn't it?). I'm
reluctant to tell people "You should switch to Nasm" - it's not the
right choice for everybody. Judging from your posts so far, I think
you'd like Nasm or Fasm better than newer versions of Masm. If I
understand "where you're coming from", *much* better.
...
> Windoz complains that the HLP files are DOS files
> Who needs DOS help ?
Dos-heads!
> It has built in help.
Yeah, but it won't get you very far. You'll want Ralf Brown's Interrupt
List (memory info and the "ports list", as well as interrupts), maybe
"helppc" (less extensive than RBIL, maybe easier to use), PCGPE - the
"PC Game Programmer's Encyclopedia" - a lot of the info is useful for
more than just "games"! The "built in" help is mostly just dos commands,
it won't help you much in understanding and altering the examples you're
working with.
Many people feel that learning dos is a total waste of time. They may be
right, but there are a few of us who feel that while dos isn't a very
impressive OS, it's a good "playground" in which to learn asm. Others
may think that dos is a waste of time, but they know it quite well.
There are a lot of people in this NG who can help you. If you alienate
people with name-calling, you'll never hear from them, and you'll never
know what you missed. Just a friendly piece of advice: if you wanna
learn asm, lose the "attitude".
Best,
Frank
Beth
> Pete wrote:
> > fantastic!
> >
> > I was thinking recently about doing somekind of modern turing
test, writing
> > a program to post and respond to messages in a newsgroup or
something.
>
> I've always wondered if "The_Sage" wasn't actually an automaton
generating
> these nonsensical messages in a constant stream :-).
> As repetitive as those messages seem to get, it wouldn't surprise me
at all
> to find that they are machine generated :-)
Well, the Terminator is now your governor, Randy...so there's a
machine pretending to be human for you right there ;)
Beth :)
Beth
> Beth wrote:
> >Fantastic!
> >
> >I've just written a post about AI where I say
>
> Beth, one just can't filter knowledge from a bucket full of
ignorance.
Yes, what would I know about it? I mean, there's your prejudiced
guesswork into that matter versus the fact that it was my full-time
job to develop cutting-edge research into cross-developing embedded
neural networks for commercial safety critical systems, before...sure,
you know better...everyone knows better than me, so they keep telling
me...just because I don't walk around waving my ego-loaded
qualifications everywhere, spouting "platitudinous esoterica"
everywhere, then I obviously was born yesterday...I completely agree,
as it's not like I'm capable of holding my own discussing almost any
technical matter with the experts in it on this group...totally valid
logic...what was I thinking in commenting?
I'm sorry that you couldn't filter out the knowledge, because of your
bucketfuls of ignorance getting in the way...I'll remember to be
monosyllabic and explain in "baby steps" next time, just especially so
as you can follow along...
> oxymoron == A moron that breathes.
Seeing as you've used a double equals sign I guess this must be C
syntax, right? Thus, the answer is zero...
Beth ;)
T.M. Sommers
>
> And, also, why are they so incompetent in constructing these robots?
> How on Earth does it survive in the real-world when the first
> paradoxical thought it meets blows it up?
>
> Oh, wait...Microsoft carry on dominating the computer world and they
> are responsible for programming all these sci-fi robots...now, _THAT_
> explains everything completely :)
There is, in fact, confirmation for this idea. Ever notice how dozens
of alien civilizations have no trouble at all in hacking into the
computers of the Starship Enterprise? Only one company can make
software as insecure as that.
T.M. Sommers
> In alt.lang.asm, Msg ID: <PKLgb.342$_i.2...@nnrp1.ptd.net>
> "T.M. Sommers" <tm...@mail.ptd.net>, wrote:
>
>>mchiper wrote:
>>
>>>*** This for the benefit of the asm language authors. ***
>>>
>>>The author said the ASM "loader.asm" works with TASM and MASM..
>>>Of course he didn't say which version of either.. -:)
>>>- He might not forgive me if I said he was and ass hole. :)
>>>- I lost count of the number of errors with MASM 2.0.
>>>- Yeah, sure . Just shut up and listen...
>>>There is NO REASON on God's earth it should not have worked.
>>>Or for the author to presume MASM means "his" version. -:)
>>
>>Why in the world would you expect to be able to assemble
>>recently-written code with a 19-year-old assembler?
>
See that line at the beginning of the code segment that reads ".386"?
>>Why in the world
>>would you expect recently-written code written for Pentium-class
>>machines to stick to the 8086/8087 instruction set?
>
> Pentium was never metioned in the Intro.
Poor wording on my part. Allow me to rephrase: "Why in the world
would you expect code written in the era of Pentium-class machines to
stick to the 8086/8087 instruction set?"
> The appy is a DOS appy..
No, it's a boot loader.
>>Just because you
>>find that DOS meets all of your requirements does not mean that the
>>rest of the world has not moved on.
>
> To what.. Assumptions, Stupidity, arrogance?
Before embarking on name-calling, you should examine your own
assumptions first. You admit elsewhere that you are a tyro. As such,
a certain humility is called for. Specifcally, you should not assume
that when you disagree with people with many years of experience (I do
not refer to myself here), they are the ones being arrogant and
stupid. As a tyro, you should be listening to the experts, not
telling them they are idiots because they disagree with you.
sinewave
> There is, in fact, confirmation for this idea. Ever notice how dozens of
> alien civilizations have no trouble at all in hacking into the computers
> of the Starship Enterprise? Only one company can make software as
> insecure as that.
"Independence Day" would have been more believable if jeff goldblum had
uploaded Windows ME.
sinewave
> "I'm not a number!!! I'm a free woman!!"
0x42 0x65 0x74 0x68 0x20 0x3A 0x70
sinewave
> everyone knows better than me, so they keep telling me.
i felt the osmosis rant was not up to your high stardards.
> just because I don't walk around waving my ego-loaded
> qualifications everywhere
wave them... shut us damn dummies up! :D
> I'm capable of holding my own discussing almost any technical
> matter with the experts in it on this group.
want to discuss porting a Colt? or chrome moly rings? or terminating a
mixer? GSA fibers? or EcoRI? or chem mechanisms? or 12.73eV? or will it be
hard candy and urban decay?
push Beths_buttons
call HEHEHE
regards,
phil
Randall Hyde
"Beth" <BethS...@hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com> wrote in message news:acVgb.20953$4D.10...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
>
> Well, the Terminator is now your governor, Randy...so there's a
> machine pretending to be human for you right there ;)
>
After all, the LA Times, great example of journalistic truth that it is,
told me that Arnie is a *nazi sympathizer* so, being the right-wing
conservative nazi that Rene claims me to be, I had to vote for Arnie :-)
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
P.S. Before we had a human pretending to be a machine.
Probably won't be much difference.
sinewave
> (:D ?)
oh, the ":p" is 'someone sticking their tongue out' :D.
T.M. Sommers
> In alt.lang.asm, Msg ID: <yUYgb.397$_i.2...@nnrp1.ptd.net>
> "T.M. Sommers" <tm...@mail.ptd.net>, wrote:
>
>>As a tyro, you should be listening to the experts, not
>>telling them they are idiots because they disagree with you.
>
> I disagree with you.
> Decode that message..
Just to make it clear, you believe that the novice should do the
talking and the experts should do the listening, and if there is any
disagreement among them, the novice is always right.
T.M. Sommers
> In alt.lang.asm, Msg ID: <Mskhb.502$_i.3...@nnrp1.ptd.net>
> "T.M. Sommers" <tm...@mail.ptd.net>, wrote:
>
>>mchiper wrote:
>>
>>> In alt.lang.asm, Msg ID: <yUYgb.397$_i.2...@nnrp1.ptd.net>
>>> "T.M. Sommers" <tm...@mail.ptd.net>, wrote:
>>>
>>>>As a tyro, you should be listening to the experts, not
>>>>telling them they are idiots because they disagree with you.
>>>
>>>OK !!
>>>I disagree with you.
>>>Decode that message..
>>
>>Just to make it clear, you believe that the novice should do the
>>talking and the experts should do the listening, and if there is any
>>disagreement among them, the novice is always right.
>
> Is that clear enogh for you?
If you mean me, in the part of a previous post that you snipped, I
specifically excluded myself from the expert category.
Regardless of any proclamations, and regardless of whether you like
being reminded of the fact, there are people who know much more than
you do about the subject of this newsgroup. Consider listening to
them instead of calling them names.
Woody
wrote:
>> I believe that self proclaimed experts are ass holes (aka idiots)
>> Is that clear enogh for you?
And these "ass holes" are the ones you want to come to for help?
T.M. Sommers
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:35:26 GMT, "T.M. Sommers" <tm...@mail.ptd.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>I believe that self proclaimed experts are ass holes (aka idiots)
>>>Is that clear enogh for you?
Just to clarify, mchiper wrote that, not I.
Woody
wrote:
>Woody wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:35:26 GMT, "T.M. Sommers" <tm...@mail.ptd.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>I believe that self proclaimed experts are ass holes (aka idiots)
>>>>Is that clear enogh for you?
>
>Just to clarify, mchiper wrote that, not I.
Exactly!
And that is the first time I ever recall making such a mistake!
Sorry.
Beth
> Comedians, AND world leaders (comedians?) for allies...
Yup, you got that right..."comedians and world leaders" does just boil
down to "comedians", in the end ;)
Beth :)