SpAsm V.4.14b is available.
Betov
< http://betov.free.fr/SpAsm.html >
As opposed to HLA: This is an Assembler.
As opposed to MASM: The ethic, the Quality, the speed.
As opposed to FASM: The easy way to produce real life
Applications.
As opposed to all other Assemblers: Complete integration
of all the components in a simple and powerfull IDE.
As opposed to me: Friendly, nice an easy.
Free, GPL. Includes:
- Source Editor.
- Assembler.
- Disassembler.
- Resources Editors.
- Debugger.
Betov.
wolfgang kern
"Betov" announced:
My opinion after a quick view | comments/suggestion/questions
download-size is comfortable short | how about an all in one.zip ?
logical and easy readable syntax | but why B$,W$,D$..; I use b,w,q..
many opportunities | needs to read the help-file first
immediate seen bugs:
hex-display 'hides' 0F
in front of 8x-branches | you treat '0F' as prefix-byte?
analysis text appear as
broken html (/par..) | perhaps I missed the correct use.
Why I wont use:
M$-dependent
could not disassemble 'foreign' files | any tricks?
At least, well done so far,
perhaps you should fix the bugs already mentioned in the DOCKER soon.
I did not check the debugger (beside many other features).
__
wolfgang [KESYS]
Betov
@newsreader1.netway.at:
>
> "Betov" announced:
>
>| SpAsm V.4.14b is available at:
>| < http://betov.free.fr/SpAsm.html >
>| As opposed to HLA: This is an Assembler.
>| As opposed to MASM: The ethic, the Quality, the speed.
>| As opposed to FASM: The easy way to produce real life Applications.
>| As opposed to all other Assemblers: Complete integration
>| of all the components in a simple and powerfull IDE.
>| As opposed to me: Friendly, nice an easy.
>
>| Free, GPL. Includes:
>| - Source Editor.
>| - Assembler.
>| - Disassembler.
>| - Resources Editors.
>| - Debugger.
>
> My opinion after a quick view | comments/suggestion/questions
> download-size is comfortable short | how about an all in one.zip ?
My own phone line is slow and critical. Example: Last upload of
SpAsm alone was half an hour (succeeded only at third attempt...).
> logical and easy readable syntax | but why B$,W$,D$..; I use b,w,q..
[PREPARSE Alternates] does it your way.
> immediate seen bugs:
> hex-display 'hides' 0F
> in front of 8x-branches | you treat '0F' as prefix-byte?
> analysis text appear as
> broken html (/par..) | perhaps I missed the correct use
I don't know what you are talking about, but, yes, having used RichEdit
facilities for the Documentation has been a major error. I will have to
rewrite this and output the Strings "by hand"...
For the 0F thing, in the disassembly Hexa: I'd not seen this. Thanks.
> Why I wont use:
> M$-dependent
> could not disassemble 'foreign' files | any tricks?
SpAsm is PE specific. It is *temporary* M$-dependant. The targetted
OS is ReactOS. The main purpose of SpAsm is to offer an alternative
to HLLs, (this is to say being an easy way for producing real life
Applications). This is better achieved by a specific Assembler than
by a Multi-Purposes Assembler. For Multi-purposes, NASM is there,
and given the real usage generally made of these kinds of Assembler,
NASM is much enough ;)
Thanks for feedback. Betov.
Beth
> SpAsm is PE specific. It is *temporary* M$-dependant. The targetted
> OS is ReactOS.
So, actually, is HLA just "temporarily" M$-dependent, Rene (in fact,
it's optionally not M$-dependent at all with FASM or GAS :)...its
target will eventually be its own object file generation...but, as
long as it all gets done in the end, we'll not quibble over minor
temporary semantics, right? ;)
Beth :)
Betov
$8W1....@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net:
Sure. This was just for saying that i am not yet "old" enough to
work GPL for M$ glory, in case someone would have some doubts.
And, frankely, i don't care that much about what HLA is dependant.
:))
If you mean that HLA, NASM, FASM, being not specific, offer a great
advantage over a specific target tool, i am in the reverse opinion:
Multi-purpose Assemblers *are* "usefull" (remembers me somone... ;)
(not considering HLA, of course...), but they will probably never
offer a real Assembly alternative to HLLs, because of all the added
complications that everybody knows.
Betov.
PS. Just because, on one hand you seem an advanced programmer, and,
on the other hand, you regulary defend HLA, one question:
Where is your Asm Coding available? Just curious. Usually, when i
discuss with people promoting things that are totaly incompatible
with Assembly and, at the same time, introduce themselves as Asm
Programmers, it may take me some time, but after that "some time",
i usually discover that they never wrote anything serious (i mean
at least *one* real life Application...) ... in Assembly... :(
Beth
> Beth wrote:
> > Betov wrote:
> >> SpAsm is PE specific. It is *temporary* M$-dependant. The
targetted
> >> OS is ReactOS.
> >
> > So, actually, is HLA just "temporarily" M$-dependent, Rene (in
fact,
> > it's optionally not M$-dependent at all with FASM or GAS :)...its
> > target will eventually be its own object file generation...but, as
> > long as it all gets done in the end, we'll not quibble over minor
> > temporary semantics, right? ;)
>
> work GPL for M$ glory, in case someone would have some doubts.
Fair enough; I have absolutely no problems with SpAsm whatsoever...I
defend your right and innovation with SpAsm as much as I would defend
HLA...in fact, perhaps you should take some comfort from the fact that
SpAsm simply doesn't need defending as much as HLA does...
> And, frankely, i don't care that much about what HLA is dependant.
:))
Again, fair enough; My comments were only regarding an earlier comment
by yourself that Randy was somehow perpetuating the evilness of
MASM...just pointing out that, in some regards, both tools would
appear to have some level of "temporary M$ dependence"...other than
Linux and until ReactOS is complete then aren't we all M$-dependent
whether we like it or not? Isn't that the whole issue of M$'s monopoly
that such a sour taste?
> If you mean that HLA, NASM, FASM, being not specific, offer a great
> advantage over a specific target tool, i am in the reverse opinion:
>
> Multi-purpose Assemblers *are* "usefull" (remembers me somone... ;)
> (not considering HLA, of course...), but they will probably never
> offer a real Assembly alternative to HLLs, because of all the added
> complications that everybody knows.
No, actually, I've praised you before and will do so again...there is
a lot of sense and intelligence in the concept of specific purpose
tools...specialising in one area until you get it sewn up better than
any other general-purpose tool can...when you have specific needs,
then specific always beats generic...ASM itself demonstrates that with
its ability to deliver superior performance by being specific when
there is a specific need and running absolute rings around generic
solutions in comparison...
I agree with you, rene...I am also "of the reverse opinion" too...when
you have a specific need and there's a specific tool that caters for
that need then there is logically no better option...and it _will_
beat the general purpose tool, if it truely specialises specifically
to its target in ways the general purpose tools don't match...
I've said it before and I'll say it again...I think you're onto
something with this "specific tool" concept...it would be really
interesting, in fact, to see a whole range of specific purpose tools
for different situations (different OSes, for example :) and be able
to judge the overall advantages of specific use targetting...I can't
say it will or won't work, of course, as only reality will show that
but I do like the concept and believe it could definitely offer
distinct advantages...
It was this whole direction you've taken with SpAsm that impressed me
to praise your attempts at progress and "revolutioneering"...I have
not retracted that in the slightest, rene...I simply do not see the
need in trying to destroy HLA to achieve your goals...SpAsm stands on
its own two feet and, in a sense, it only harms it to have this
perception that you feel you need to attack HLA...almost as if you're
trying to suggest that SpAsm needs to have the competition removed for
it to stand a chance...this is patently wrong and false...which is why
the attacks seem, well, wrong...
You probably won't see it but I defend HLA in this way because I'm
trying to ween you off this instinct to slash out with attacks...it
does SpAsm's profile no good to do this, as it could so easily appear
as if, well, you're "scared" of other tools and don't believe SpAsm
could stand without "helping" it with these attacks...I believe you're
not doing SpAsm the justice it actually deserves...promote SpAsm,
promote real assembly, promote these things...if you are correct then
this will be the dagger in your competition's side...if you have truth
then you have nothing to fear, as nothing can destroy truth (truth can
become hidden and lost but it may never be destroyed or
contradicted...that is the very thing that makes it truth :)...
> PS. Just because, on one hand you seem an advanced programmer, and,
> on the other hand, you regulary defend HLA, one question:
You probably don't realise how biased it sounds to be proceeding
entirely on the presumption that these two things are mutually
exclusive...
Perhaps it can be made clear by changing the context but retaining the
same relative attitude...how about: "on the one hand, you seem an
intelligent person, but, on the other hand, you regularly defend the
weak and the stupid, showing them patience, tolerance and
understanding"? Again, is my "revolutioneer" showing some signs of the
very eliteism he claims to detest?
No, sorry...it is _because_ I show patience, tolerance, understanding,
mercy and generousity when I'm able that _makes_ me an intelligent
person...not some "let's join some elitist
pat-each-other-on-the-back-all-day club because I'm in the top 10% who
are able to match blue shapes with numbers in some irrelevent
culturally-biased IQ test" qualification...
Probably you might disagree and you would be far from alone in that
opinion...it takes an entire lifetime to fully realise what it is I'm
driving at here - though, intuitively, many people will recognise
something, even if they cannot put their finger on why it should be
so - and I do not fully comprehend it myself...but all of us are born
with an inherent sense of fairness that often gets distorted along the
way...the child told to "grow up" and simply accept a false, hollow
life that they at no point ever signed up to or agreed with because
"it's the way things are"...they will destroy the world for
"convenience"...but I am naive and child-like, apparently, to
contradict the unjustified "wisdom" that this is "the way things are
and it can never be changed"...why on Earth is this said? It's just
one big perpetual Chinese whisper...hundreds of good men and women
have walked this Earth and _proved_ it's an absolute lie...but, still,
you're told that you're not intelligent, not successful, not adult -
told anything that will make you conform through guilt or shame - to
accept this "status quo"...who's choice? Who's rules? Who's benefit?
Who's Liberty? Very few can even attempt an answer to those questions
and I've encountered no answer that's convincing...and no answer that
was ever said with clear conviction in the voice and eyes of those
saying it...always said as one more chain in the perpetual Chinese
whisper that someone else passed onto them...
"Hello?
Is there anybody in there?
Just nod if you can hear me.
Is there anyone at home?
Come on, now...
I hear you're feeling down.
Well, I can ease your pain
And get you on your feet again.
Relax...
I need some information first.
Just the basic facts,
_Can you show me where it hurts_?
There is no pain, you are receding.
A distant ship's smoke on the horizon.
You are only coming through in waves.
Your lips move but I can't hear what you're sayin'.
When I was a child I had a fever.
My hands felt just like two balloons.
Now I got that feeling once again.
I can't explain, you would not understand.
_This is not how I am_.
I have become...comfortably numb.
When I was a child, I caught a fleeting glimpse,
Out of the corner of my eye.
I turned to look but it was gone.
I cannot put my finger on it now.
The child is grown, the dream is gone.
I have become...comfortably numb."
[ "Comfortably Numb", Pink Floyd from "The Wall" album :) ]
> Where is your Asm Coding available? Just curious. Usually, when i
> discuss with people promoting things that are totaly incompatible
> with Assembly and, at the same time, introduce themselves as Asm
> Programmers, it may take me some time, but after that "some time",
> i usually discover that they never wrote anything serious (i mean
> at least *one* real life Application...) ... in Assembly... :(
And your point being, presumably, that if I don't have a website full
of ASM code for all to download then my opinion - regardless that you
consider that I "seem an advanced programmer" and clearly can happily
discuss advanced programming topics with the best of them, beyond any
possible efforts to "bluff" my way through it all - is worth
nothing...
Which, conveniently and coincidentally, means that you can avoid the
quite legitimate point I've now thrust upon you in comparing that HLA
and SpAsm have, in this context, quite equal dependence on M$ but
which, when you talked to Randy, you accused him of being in league
with the devil for having such a dependence...well, conveniently and
coincidentally, if you come up with some strange "no ASM code on a
website means her opinion is worthless", then you can deflect the
accusation in reverse - avoiding my point (pretending not to
comprehend it...clever ;) and putting the pressure and spotlight on me
instead so I have no chance to further what I was saying, as I'm too
busy dodging your accusations...
Nice try; I've worked commercially on research and development
projects - as I think I've mentioned once or twice before - so it was
a safe bet to presume that I'd be under a non-disclosure agreement and
there'd be no "free downloads" of anything...a wise move as, yes, that
is quite true and does leave me with no "proof" by which to defend
myself...all other work is purely "hobby" stuff and, sure, I've
admitted that I do tend to procrastinate...not a problem when working
for others, as deadlines and a wage packet keeps me motivated to
move...but, yes, when "my own boss" with hobby projects, I'm a
terrible procrastinator...well, actually, no...it's more a case of
always trying to do too much and never getting anything fully
completed...but, rene, I know well enough that I'm far from alone in
that criteria and if we counted raised hands and checked resumes then
probably only Randy's productivity would come anywhere near smelling
of roses...
But, no...nice try but it won't work...obviously, like all when we're
honest enough to admit it, I wouldn't like for my name to be smeared
in mud...but it's _not_ most important to me and you've miscalculated
to presume that it was (perhaps because it is to you and, therefore,
you assume it also must apply equally to me?)...so, there is no
"proof" - in terms of some big "Beth's software downloads" website
which you've cleverly moved into a position as being the only
acceptable way to refute your allegations...cleverly when it's a known
fact here that I have no such website - but I simply don't care all
that much...I'm sufficiently confident (arrogant?) enough to offer
what I say on a purely "take it or leave it" basis...
Anyone doesn't want to believe my opinion has any merit just because I
can't instantly produce a URL for a goldmine of previously written ASM
code (hands up who can...I mean, Randy's a sure bet for someone who
clearly has done lots of work in his time...but, excluding HLA on
Webster, where's the downloads of his other previous work before that?
He's been in this field for decades now that there should be plenty of
things...where can I download his Apple assembler he mentioned? Do I
then ridicule his every word and dismiss him if he can't instantly
give me a URL to this assembler he mentioned, as quite possibly it has
simply become lost in the mists of history?)...if this is how things
are going to work here then, fine, you win...I surrender...you've made
your point and I will not dispute or refute it in the slightest...when
someone shouts, you must learn to whisper...total submission...you
win...you're right...
Right, now that this deflection tactic from you has been dealt with,
it is only fair - and, amusingly, I'd have let it happily drop
otherwise - that we resurface my point and see if you'll answer it
directly this time...
You accused Randy's HLA of being "evil" and various other things
because it perpetuated the MA$M destruction of assembly by its
"support" of the MASM assembler...at this point - regardless of your
claims not to care now - you said that HLA was "evil" for doing so and
that Randy should immediately support FASM and NASM and such to
"prove" his "loyalty" to the notion of free software and the
programmer community that he was not a puppet of M$'s
destruction...these points are now called into question by your
confession that you're also just as "temporarily M$-dependent" as HLA
is...
Straight answer or I'll just ask it all over again...sorry, I wouldn't
have been happy to leave it be but you insisted on trying to get out
of it by using a cheap personal attack on me...a delibrate attempt to
damage my reputation and credibility...Randy may tolerate you trying
such underhand tactics but, trust me, I will not stand for it...and
you do not want to make your battles personal with me because I
guarantee you I do bitchy a hundred times better than you can...
A straight answer or step down...your choice...
Beth :)
P.S. I still retain admiration for the attempts at progress and
innovation and the risks of trying out the "specific assembler"
concept - targetted, no less, at an OS that's not even finished -
that's bold and I believe worthy of support...you still have it and I
won't resort to saying a bad word about SpAsm as any sort of
revenge...I still recommend people download it and evaluate it for
themselves...because, I've repeatedly tried to point out to you, that
actually only reflects badly on yourself for using such unnecessary
underhand tactics to savage the competition rather than promote your
own tool...the strong have nothing to fear and it's only the weak who
feel they need to resort to such tactics...
Betov
@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net:
> [...]
>
>> Where is your Asm Coding available? Just curious. Usually, when i
>> discuss with people promoting things that are totaly incompatible
>> with Assembly and, at the same time, introduce themselves as Asm
>> Programmers, it may take me some time, but after that "some time",
>> i usually discover that they never wrote anything serious (i mean
>> at least *one* real life Application...) ... in Assembly... :(
>
> Nice try; I've worked commercially on research and development
> projects - as I think I've mentioned once or twice before - so it was
> a safe bet to presume that I'd be under a non-disclosure agreement and
> there'd be no "free downloads" of anything...a wise move as, yes, that
> is quite true and does leave me with no "proof" by which to defend
> myself...
>
> [...]
>
> Right, now that this deflection tactic from you has been dealt with,
> it is only fair - and, amusingly, I'd have let it happily drop
> otherwise - that we resurface my point and see if you'll answer it
> directly this time...
... And what do you expect me to answer???
I believe what i see. Period. I have never said that an HLL programmer
was by definition a nobody. You may as well have a very advanced knowledge
about programming, generally speacking (knowledge that *i* have surely
not...), this does not mean that i have to take care about what you may
say about Assembly. My real way of thinking is that, if you had a real
knowledge of Assembly programming, you would not be pushing HLA, and
that i feel allowed to say what Assembly is, and is not. This is shocking?
Too bad. Too bad for you if you really wrote a lot of Asm things and that
you can't show me anything, for whatever good or bad reason.
Do not expect any other attitude from me, depending on what your *are*.
You may have an IQ much over mine, -geniuses may be stupid also-. You may
be, as you say, "a lady" -i don't care, if you are gay, yellow, or green-.
You may be a leader in embeeded computers or whatever -i am talking of
x86 Assembly-. If you consider it a personal insult because i don't *take*
what you may say, as it come, take it the way you like.
When i asked the same question to Fodder, to Hutch, to Ed, and so many
others, though i suppose, they understood it a bit the way you do, they
simply *answered*. In some way, you are right when considering this a
personal attack. I clearly mean:
Did you or not wrote, at least, a complete real life Application in
Assembly. Yes? OK, we may discuss. No? Sorry, i don't care about
whatever you way think and say. Period. Sorry if i have put my finger
where it hurts you, but this is your problem. Not mine.
Also, to me, as long as i have not *seen* it, it does not exist. For
example, i have seen Randy "Assembly", and all i can say is that this
is *not* what i call "Assembly". So, "this" may explain "that", in my
attitude...
> You accused Randy's HLA of being "evil" and various other things
> because it perpetuated the MA$M destruction of assembly by its
> "support" of the MASM assembler...at this point - regardless of your
> claims not to care now - you said that HLA was "evil" for doing so and
> that Randy should immediately support FASM and NASM and such to
> "prove" his "loyalty" to the notion of free software and the
> programmer community that he was not a puppet of M$'s
> destruction...these points are now called into question by your
> confession that you're also just as "temporarily M$-dependent" as HLA
> is...
>
> Straight answer or I'll just ask it all over again...sorry, I wouldn't
> have been happy to leave it be but you insisted on trying to get out
> of it by using a cheap personal attack on me...a delibrate attempt to
> damage my reputation and credibility...Randy may tolerate you trying
> such underhand tactics but, trust me, I will not stand for it...and
> you do not want to make your battles personal with me because I
> guarantee you I do bitchy a hundred times better than you can...
>
> A straight answer or step down...your choice...
>
> Beth :)
For the Randy case, *I SEE* and i have done nothing but saying what i
have seen: This is a big shit packet, with a pretty pink ruban around
saying This is the work from a Master of Art of Assembly Programming".
Recently i saw several posts from beginners falling in the HLA trap.
I also saw the nice, friendly and constructive answers of Frank and
friends. I also saw all of the things at the Evil Board for HLA. I
have to say that, what i saw, at that time, made me fall into the same
desesparate mood, as when i saw the so easy and quick victory of the
international crime organisation, in the recent Irak events.
I am now in the opinion that Randy's Plan is going to work: He will
really have a Publisher for his horror. Young guys will effectively
buy that shit. The guys *want* to buy things. I recently had some
pain to believe mine eyes, when i discovered a link for *buy* TASM 5.
And it seemed to interrest some guys. I don't know if i have to cry
or laugh when seeing such things. Mental desease has no end... so,
whatever i could now say would be like preaching in the desert. The
rebirth of Assembly is going to be much slown down, and all i could
do to try to fight against this situation would result in nothing
but spoiled time for me, and as you say, only achieve in covering
the SpAsm Project with an 'politically incorrect' color.
So, let Randy win his stupid personal glory. Let the young guys run
on a no way road. Let Assembly go on his reducing way. Let all good
wills and efforts be spoiled around.
About one year ago, when i was talking of HLA, at least, i had to
admit, that, as a "Learning/Teaching" Tool, i had nothing to say
about -as i know nothing about pedagogy-. Now, i also could, because
*I SEE*. I see, for example, those recent posts about Multi-Dimentional
Arrays in HLA. I did not answer anything, because i did not understood
first, if it was a joke, or what -I first thought Randy had payed
someone for playing the user...-. Then, i have read the evolutions of
the thread, and the answers,... and, frankely, i have been really stuck
to death:
1) Nobody told him to use an Assembler.
2) Nobody told him that there was no Multi-Dimentional "anything" in
a Computer Memory.
3) When the poor guy finally found out (by himself!!!) how to do it,
he thought that his way was nothing but a durty hack, and nobody
told him that this was the only known way in Assembly, and he must
be yet convinced that there is some other way for "Multi-Dimentional"
things in Assembly. Oh! My Goat!!!!!!!......
So, no, really, HLA is, not only, not an Assembler at all, but it also
is not even a decent learning tool, at all. Just a set of illusion in
the HLL manner. And then??? This is just 'funny'? Let us be nice with
the poor HLA beginners? Well let you be nice if you like to, and let
them die with their mouthes open on no mean questions.
Bye, Betov.
PS. Ah, by the way, Hutch leaved the Evil Board recently. A bit of
good news in this sad world, as this event will have no other effect
but making FASM the first Assembler, in that room.
After this pleasant event, i had some Mails exchanges with Hutch for
trying to convince him to stop his stupid redistribution of MASM, but,
as you may guess, with no success. Well,... I may try to, anyway...
Good news are not falling each day. (Bad news,... yes).
Annie
On 2003-05-08 BethS...@hotmail.com said:
> [ 281 lines snipped ]
>
> ...you do not want to make your battles personal with me because
> I guarantee you I do bitchy a hundred times better than you can...
_____
More likely, you'll TALK ((( `\
him to death. Hehehe! _ _`\ )
(^ ) )
~-( )
_'((,,,)))
,-' \_/ `\
( , |
`-.-'`-.-'/|_|
\ / | |
=()=: / ,' aa
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
bv_schornak
<...a lot...>
1:0 for you - it seems...
As I have been reading the one or other posting from you,
I would be interested in one thing - do you really think,
that _today_ somebody - except you - will write an entire
program in pure assembler?
Regardless if you write code for Linux, OS/2 or Windows -
_why_ should anybody be that cruel to her- or himself and
code all the procedures, the filling of structures, calls
to any windowing function in assembler? It would take you
a huge amount of time to do so, even if you use cut&paste
to do some repetitive work...
I am not a fan of HLA - reading some of the examples made
me think, that I would go C++ (I hate C++!) rather than I
would use HLA! But there is C (still one of the most used
programming languages), which makes GUI programming much,
much easier (and way faster). Why should I use assembler,
if all kernel and GUI calls are using C as their default?
Does it make sense, to replace five lines of plain C with
let's say fifty lines of assembler? Which are compiled to
the same machine code in the end? Structures and calls to
functions cannot be "optimized" - they look the same - if
compiled from a C compiler or an assembler...
Might be worth to think about?
Application programming has to follow several lines. 1st,
it should be easy to code. Makes a point for HLL, because
it is coded faster. 2nd, it should run fast. This point's
going to assembler, but modern HLL compilers are not that
far away from assembler! 3rd (today not _that_ important,
because users are used to get _bloated_ code), the size -
no doubt, who's winning this one. But the result of "2:1"
for assembler doesn't mean, that it is used in our modern
application programming. Sad - but true! In modern times,
people don't have the time (it _costs_ money) to put much
effort into assembler. They prefer C++ or Visual Basic or
other crap, because it saves a lot of time, and you don't
need to know everything about the machine. You just click
the things together, as you need them. That's the new way
to write software. Does not need to mention, that this is
the wrong way - but neither you nor me (nor anybody else)
will change it. If it comes down to big business, there's
no room for "proper work" - and since the "professionals"
are working this way, most "spare time programmers" (like
me) will follow them sooner or later...
Before you ask - yes, but meanwhile hybrid (C+asm). ;)
And - I respect your work! It needs a strong will to keep
swimming against the stream. Not meant in a negative way!
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
bv_schornak
Hi Jeff!
> I hope you'll pardon the interjection, here, but your statements--
> despite being directed at betov--are rather global.
Methinks this is stuff which _should_ be discussed!
>>As I have been reading the one or other posting from you,
>>I would be interested in one thing - do you really think,
>>that _today_ somebody - except you - will write an entire
>>program in pure assembler?
>
> Of course, and... why not? Your reasoning for "why not" (below)
> are... "personal perspective oriented", and not in the least
> applicable to... myself, for example.
Just practical considerations, bound to the lifetime left
for the things you want to do...
>>Regardless if you write code for Linux, OS/2 or Windows -
>>_why_ should anybody be that cruel to her- or himself and
>>code all the procedures, the filling of structures, calls
>>to any windowing function in assembler?
>
> For the same reason that s/he got into programming in the first
> place - because they like it. That you view 100% Assembler as
> some form of cruelty, is... well, I just don't agree, but I've also
> encountered plenty of people who felt that being required to
> learn hexa-decimal was cruel and unusual punishments.
Please look into the "bubblesort" thread to get some more
details about my programming history...
>>It would take you
>>a huge amount of time to do so, even if you use cut&paste
>>to do some repetitive work...
>
> Simply - I disagree, but I'll concede that it ultimately depends on
> how good one is, at thinking in terms of processor instructions
> and memory organization, and applying that thought process to
> the task at hand.
You're right in some parts. My intention is to write some
applications, not to pray the prayers of any "language" -
there are so much ideas I would have to realize, but this
can't be done, because I simply don't have the time to do
it. Would need 2 and more lives...
> There are, likely, plenty of people who don't understand why
> an artist would spend so much time producing a painting with
> brushes and meticulous effort, when the "guy down the street"
> cranks out "paintings" with rubber stamps.
>
> Same with music. Why bother spending the time (that is, a lifetime)
> learning as much about music and one or more instruments, when
> we have machines and software that'll do all "the hard stuff"?
>
> Why should somebody put forth so much time and effort practicing,
> and honing skills, in the hope of one day being able to play like
> Midori, when the "guy down the street" sounds just like her, and all
> *he* has to do is press a few keys?
See <http://schornak.de/music/index.htm> and tell me some
more stories about (my?) music! ;)
> I'd suppose "the guy" also feels that the student is subjecting
> him/her self to some form of cruelty... (?)
>
>>I am not a fan of HLA - reading some of the examples made
>>me think, that I would go C++ (I hate C++!) rather than I
>>would use HLA! But there is C (still one of the most used
>>programming languages), which makes GUI programming much,
>>much easier (and way faster).
>
> I disagree, but it obviously depends on one's familiarity with
> the API.
See above - I'm a pragmatist...
>>Why should I use assembler,
>>if all kernel and GUI calls are using C as their default?
>
> I don't understand that statement... kernel and GUI calls
> are "using" C? What does that mean?
Nearly all of them are written in C (C++), most calls and
structures follow the C conventions (or are part of C it-
self), except the OO stuff, using "higher" HLL dialects.
>>Does it make sense, to replace five lines of plain C with
>>let's say fifty lines of assembler?
>
> I don't know where those particular numbers come from, but
> it's been my experience that C disassembles to *much* more
> than what could have been done in Assembler in the first place.
> *So* much, that it's positively sickening (regarding your 3rd
> point, further down).
I know _that_ from practical experience - but it does not
apply to everything!
>>Which are compiled to
>>the same machine code in the end?
>
> Isn't this just a little contradictory? If that were really the case,
> then we wouldn't *have* bloated code in the first place.
The _bloated_ stuff are the runtime and standard library,
which are replaced by my own assembler functions... ;)
>>Structures and calls to
>>functions cannot be "optimized" - they look the same - if
>>compiled from a C compiler or an assembler...
>
> Granted, but since when does a programming effort consist of
> nothing but a string of function calls? (to the API, I'm assuming)
To the API and my own (most assembler, few C) functions.
> On the other hand, that's probably what Microsoft has in mind -
> that, one day, that's all "a program" would *need* to consist of.
> And we'll have gigabyte executables, and hey... they'll actually
> perform somewhat decently on last year's 133GHz processor and
> 256GB of RAM (recommended minimum system requirements).
OS/2 still needs less than 100 MB on my partition, and it
can do almost everything, which the 2 GB Win XP offers...
>>Might be worth to think about?
>
> Not in my book. What *might* be worth thinking about, on the
> other hand, is... can you imagine, if people relatively new to
> computing knew what their current machines were actually
> capable of?
Yes!
>>Application programming has to follow several lines. 1st,
>>it should be easy to code.
>
> "Easy" for who? Joe Blow, or a seasoned programmer...?
I am a "seasoned" programmer! So I'm "2nd" class now?
Jeff - I don't care, as long as my apps work! ;)
>>Makes a point for HLL, because
>>it is coded faster. 2nd, it should run fast. This point's
>>going to assembler, but modern HLL compilers are not that
>>far away from assembler!
>
> If that were really the case... then, again, we wouldn't have
> the next point.
It is! I am not praying HLL, and neither did the guys who
tested the HLL compilers!
>>3rd (today not _that_ important,
>>because users are used to get _bloated_ code),
>
> How many of them really know any better?
Few - most people are blinded by the lights of Gates...
>>the size -
>>no doubt, who's winning this one. But the result of "2:1"
>>for assembler doesn't mean, that it is used in our modern
>>application programming. Sad - but true! In modern times,
>>people don't have the time (it _costs_ money) to put much
>>effort into assembler. They prefer C++ or Visual Basic or
>>other crap, because it saves a lot of time, and you don't
>>need to know everything about the machine.
>
> You have hit the nail on the head, but... I interpret it differently.
Why don't "assemble" it? ;)
(Means - take it as I wrote it...)
>>You just click
>>the things together, as you need them.
>
> Great! So, anybody who can grasp Lego building blocks, can
> get a job as a "programmer!"
See below - don't put things out of the context!
BTW - children show much more imagination with LEGO, than
programmers show with all this "Visual XX" crap...
>>That's the new way
>>to write software. Does not need to mention, that this is
>>the wrong way - but neither you nor me (nor anybody else)
>>will change it.
>
> Not as long as greed and stupidity (such as the entity you mention
> in the next line) rule, no.
I did _not_ say, that I like it!
>>If it comes down to big business, there's
>>no room for "proper work" - and since the "professionals"
>>are working this way, most "spare time programmers" (like
>>me) will follow them sooner or later...
>
> Why?
Maybe, because my job takes too much time? There were lot
of weeks I didn't see my bed for 5 days...
>>Before you ask - yes, but meanwhile hybrid (C+asm). ;)
>
> Whatever trips your trigger, I always say. But, have a look at
> the two programs, here:
>
> http://www.theproduct.de
I will check it later - have to go to work now... :(
> If Microsoft employed nothing but programmers such as these
> guys... Windows XP could probably be delivered on a couple/
> few floppies. <g>
>
> It's not just a shame, it's a downright travesty. It's a slap in the face,
> that those at the helm of big business which feeds off the masses,
> have succeeded in demeaning that once highly sought, highly
> regarded human quality called "skill" and (especially) "creativity"...
> Oh... unless, of course, one's creative skill happens to be in devising
> a better "push a button - sound like Jimi Hendrix" contraption, or,
> in this particular context, "push several buttons - and out pops
> a computer program".
Nope, that's what I hate the most, believe me! I (myself)
can't make a statement about my creativity - would not be
very humble or so - but I _do_ have a lot of ideas... See
<http://schornak.de>. Sad thing is, that my life is short
and limited...
> Uhh... the people who use VB (or some such)... are they still
> taught what the "B" in BASIC stands for?
>
> All I can say is, thank *goodness* there are people who buck the
> trend, and I can only *hope* that their (really, already impressive)
> numbers will continue to increase.
Hope so, too - and I'm surely not your foe!
Betov
online.com:
[...]
Bernhard, i see your points as entirely based on the assumption
that Assembly is, by definition, difficult and slow to write.
The required work time and difficulties you may have with a given
Language depends, first, on how much you are familiar with that
given Language. If it is made faster and easier, for you, in C
than in Assembly, this only shows that you are better in C than
you are in Assembly. I can swear you that if i had to write what
i am writing actually, in C, i would spend hundread more time for
the C version.
>I would be interested in one thing - do you really think,
>that _today_ somebody - except you - will write an entire
>program in pure assembler?
Yes, i know several Programmers who are today writing Applications
in Assembly (not only with SpAsm). I have to admit that those are
the very few. But this is not on the fault of Assembly, if C did
overflow all of the programming area, whith the oncoming of Win 3.
This is on the fault 1) of the Companies, who pushed C, for
market rules purpose, 2) of the Programmers themseves who did
not resist fermely enough, and "let it go" to hell.
Assembly rebirth is *very* recent. Only 5 or 6 years, at best.
There is yet much work to be done before providing a real Asm
alternative to HLL, but we are on the way to, with several
Projects, including mine.
>_why_ should anybody be that cruel to her- or himself and
>code all the procedures, the filling of structures, calls
>to any windowing function in assembler? It would take you
>a huge amount of time to do so, even if you use cut&paste
>to do some repetitive work...
???... :( Examples ??? Haven't you ever heard about using
HLL macros in Assembly for writing in a friendly and readable
style?
May i suggest you to take a look at some user demos written
with SpAsm, and see if, formaly, they do really make that much
difference compared to what you would get in any HLL Source?
>Application programming has to follow several lines. 1st,
>it should be easy to code. Makes a point for HLL, because
>it is coded faster.
May be you are confusing the IDE and the Language. As i already
said, if, for example, you can build a usable Data Base, in
Delphi, in a couple of Clicks, this is *not* a feature of the
Language. This is a feature of the IDE/RAD. The actual truth
is that, indead, there is, today, no such available Assembler
IDE/RAD able to offer such features. But there is no pratical and
no theorical reason for what this could not be done for Assembly.
Only Market rule reasons, on the side of the Companies, and only
the lack of volunteers for writing such implementations on the
side of the actual free Assemblers. Volunteers are not that much,
for working for free, and added to this, the little number of
Assembly Programmers is divided into as many concurrent groups
as possible.
Each time i have tried to argue against HLA, it seems that most
people thought i was doing this because i would prefer having SpAsm
alone in the place for an easier success. This is not the problem.
Today, the Assembly programming for Win32Asm is divided into NASM,
FASM, GoAsm, SpAsm. (not talking of TASM, MASM and other things that
i refuse to consider...). This is already twice the number of offers
we would need. There is room for *two* Assemblers: A Multi-Purpose
one (should be either NASM or FASM) and a Win32 specific Assembler
(should be either SpAsm or GoAsm). This is to say that this is
highly wishable that two of these Assemblers vanish as soon as
possible, in order to not divide good wills and efforts into no
use sub-projects. In any case, there is zero room for such a thing
like HLA. Each user going to that road, is one less user for the
other valid choices. The less users each, the less volunteers. The
more no use offers, the more wasted efforts. Each beginner, lost
today, with HLA stupidities, is a tomorrow lost advanced programmer,
who could have, eventually, become an interresting volunteer in 3
or 4 years, for going on developing some of the serious Projects.
>... 2nd, it should run fast. This point's
>going to assembler, but modern HLL compilers are not that
>far away from assembler!
You are missing the same point as so many programmers: An Assembly
written Application is *not* the translation of an HLL written
Application. Full Assembly written Applications "may" be *much*
faster than HLL written ones, not because they are written in
Assembly, but, because, when writing in Assembly, the programmer
has a direct view of what he is doing. To make a long story short,
Assembly is a way of thinking the problem and the solution, and we
do *not* think the Application in the same manner an HLL programmer
would do.
The KeyWord with this is "Strategy Optimisation". You can not do
real Strategy Optimisation in HLL because HLL hide you the code
reality.
A second KeyWord would be "Specific Programming". Just take a
look at HLA Library, and you should immidiately understand that
this is *not* Assembly, even if partially written in Assembler.
This is typically the HLL way of thinking the solution, instead
of letting the Programmer think of the problem. If one uses such
stupid Libraries in Assembly, there is no reason for what his
Application should be much faster than any decent Basic output.
But, on the other hand, there are many reasons for what his
Application could be made much _worst_.
>...3rd (today not _that_ important,
>because users are used to get _bloated_ code), the size -
>no doubt, who's winning this one
Yes Assembly written Applications are smaller than HLL ones, but
this point, usually given, at once, with the speed argument, is
without any importance. As you point out, today Computers are
much fast enough, and memories and Disk huge enough for making
durty productions perfectely usable for the end user. So, this
is really no more a problem. Size and Speed Optimisations are for
guys who do not understand the problems. This is why i consider
that the Programmers who think they know Assembly, because they
may write from time to time, an highly optimized Asm Routine,
for their C Apps improvements, are not qualified to give asm
lessons, even if they may be very advanced programmers, in other
programming areas.
Betov.
bv_schornak
>Bernhard, i see your points as entirely based on the assumption
>that Assembly is, by definition, difficult and slow to write.
>
>The required work time and difficulties you may have with a given
>Language depends, first, on how much you are familiar with that
>given Language. If it is made faster and easier, for you, in C
>than in Assembly, this only shows that you are better in C than
>you are in Assembly. I can swear you that if i had to write what
>i am writing actually, in C, i would spend hundread more time for
>the C version.
>
Ok - agreement! I was too stupid to realize, that the one
or other person _will_ have fun with writing programs en-
tirely in assembler. Sorry, was quite biased.
About my programming history - I started about 1980 or so
with (what else) Basic. In 1981 I had a 68k machine which
came with a ROM-based assembler as OS - so I had to learn
assembler, and I enjoyed it, because it was very fast and
I could do almost everything I never could have done with
Basic and its restrictions. There were 8 years I had _no_
computer at all, then I finally (1992) came to the PC. My
first programming language was A86, which I used to write
code - until 1994, when I changed to OS/2.
Starting to write code for OS/2, there were few compilers
available in 1994, and not even one assembler, except the
version of GAS which was part of the GCC/2 package. Thus,
I learned AT&T syntax and wrote the assembler parts of my
programs with this "dialect". That's what I'm still using
to write code, and much more than 70% of my functions are
written in assembler. I _only_ learned C for all the OS/2
specific stuff - I still think it saves a lot of time, if
you write all the window procedures and the likes in C...
So you know a little bit about me and my "background" and
don't have to talk to a complete stranger...
>>I would be interested in one thing - do you really think,
>>that _today_ somebody - except you - will write an entire
>>program in pure assembler?
>>
>
>Yes, i know several Programmers who are today writing Applications
>in Assembly (not only with SpAsm). I have to admit that those are
>the very few. But this is not on the fault of Assembly, if C did
>overflow all of the programming area, whith the oncoming of Win 3.
>
>This is on the fault 1) of the Companies, who pushed C, for
>market rules purpose, 2) of the Programmers themseves who did
>not resist fermely enough, and "let it go" to hell.
>
Really? Then - why is Linux written in C (and nowadays in
C++ in some parts)? Because it's _that_ bad? Don't under-
stand me wrong - I prefer assembler myself, but - is your
statement really right - in _any_ point?
C exists _much_ longer than Windows 3.x, and it first was
developed for Unix!
>Assembly rebirth is *very* recent. Only 5 or 6 years, at best.
>There is yet much work to be done before providing a real Asm
>alternative to HLL, but we are on the way to, with several
>Projects, including mine.
>
I wish, every of your visions would become true!
But - it's a wish. Let's have a look, what reality says!
>>_why_ should anybody be that cruel to her- or himself and
>>code all the procedures, the filling of structures, calls
>>to any windowing function in assembler? It would take you
>>a huge amount of time to do so, even if you use cut&paste
>>to do some repetitive work...
>>
>
>???... :( Examples ??? Haven't you ever heard about using
>HLL macros in Assembly for writing in a friendly and readable
>style?
>
Have you ever tried to do that with GAS? There is almost
no documentation available. I'm online since 2002/07, so
I had no chance to get sufficient info before. And since
I didn't use it until then - I probably will not need it
for future programs.
Example:
In C:
{
a = FDacc(0, 0, 0, FDA_READ, 0, 0);
}
In asm:
pushl $0
pushl $0
pushl $1 # have to get the defined value for
pushl $0 # FDA-READ, first!
pushl $0
pushl $0
call _FDacc
addl $24,%esp
movl %eax,0[address of a]
Reads an entry from a field of my database - I have seen
the output of GCC as asm source file, it looks _exactly_
the same as the hand written code. You could optimize it
a little bit, if you do a direct write to the stack. For
my taste, the C version is easier to write and to under-
stand for another person who doesn't know anything about
FDacc(). At least, if you imagine, that there are multi-
ple FDacc() calls with different actions and parameters,
e.g. read two fields, add the entries together, write it
to another field...
>May i suggest you to take a look at some user demos written
>with SpAsm, and see if, formaly, they do really make that much
>difference compared to what you would get in any HLL Source?
>
Does it produce LE executables? Do you supply OS/2's API
with the appropriate headers? I would give it a try - at
once!
I never wrote - and never will write - one line of code,
which is thought to be run in any OS sold by Microsoft -
and I'm really tough with it - at least as tough, as you
are with assembler programming! If I don't like the pro-
ducts of a company, then I _never_ will supply it in any
way. The only way to fight a company is to ignore it and
_not_ to feed or supply their products!
>>Application programming has to follow several lines. 1st,
>>it should be easy to code. Makes a point for HLL, because
>>it is coded faster.
>>
>
>May be you are confusing the IDE and the Language. As i already
>said, if, for example, you can build a usable Data Base, in
>Delphi, in a couple of Clicks, this is *not* a feature of the
>Language. This is a feature of the IDE/RAD. The actual truth
>is that, indead, there is, today, no such available Assembler
>IDE/RAD able to offer such features. But there is no pratical and
>no theorical reason for what this could not be done for Assembly.
>Only Market rule reasons, on the side of the Companies, and only
>the lack of volunteers for writing such implementations on the
>side of the actual free Assemblers. Volunteers are not that much,
>for working for free, and added to this, the little number of
>Assembly Programmers is divided into as many concurrent groups
>as possible.
>
My "IDE" is OS/2's system editor (E.EXE) and three batch
files - one to invoke MAKE to clean up all object files,
then start GCC, one to delete the resource file prior to
the invocation of MAKE and one to start MAKE without any
additional work. My debugger is called "brain v 1.0" and
it sits upon my shoulders. That's all I need to write my
programs. For me, a compiler shouldn't come along with a
thousand features and coloured diagrams and stuff - it's
sufficient, if it compiles good. Where good is fast, and
it should produce compact and somewhat optimized execut-
ables.
My database engine is completely written in assembler. I
would bet, it beats the Borland engine with ease! (But -
not because it is written in assembler, that is only one
of the reasons.) BTW - it is OpenSource - so there would
be least one database engine available for your IDE. But
not for Windows (wouldn't like it anyway, see above)!
Let me tell you something: I believe, that most "modern"
programmers just are _too_ lazy to switch on their brain
and code something themselves if it already is available
somewhere. This, and the commercial race (faster release
intervals, more profit with less effort) are the reasons
for the current situation. It's all big business, and it
is controlled by a few companies who have monopolies for
a specific part of the market...
>Each time i have tried to argue against HLA, it seems that most
>people thought i was doing this because i would prefer having SpAsm
>alone in the place for an easier success. This is not the problem.
>
>Today, the Assembly programming for Win32Asm is divided into NASM,
>FASM, GoAsm, SpAsm. (not talking of TASM, MASM and other things that
>i refuse to consider...). This is already twice the number of offers
>we would need. There is room for *two* Assemblers: A Multi-Purpose
>one (should be either NASM or FASM) and a Win32 specific Assembler
>(should be either SpAsm or GoAsm). This is to say that this is
>highly wishable that two of these Assemblers vanish as soon as
>possible, in order to not divide good wills and efforts into no
>use sub-projects. In any case, there is zero room for such a thing
>like HLA. Each user going to that road, is one less user for the
>other valid choices. The less users each, the less volunteers. The
>more no use offers, the more wasted efforts. Each beginner, lost
>today, with HLA stupidities, is a tomorrow lost advanced programmer,
>who could have, eventually, become an interresting volunteer in 3
>or 4 years, for going on developing some of the serious Projects.
>
True, more than true! I'm always thinking about the huge
_mental_ potential in all the newsgroups I am subscribed
to. If all the people would act together, rather than to
fight each other - what a superb software could be deve-
loped by them. But instead, almost everybody is watching
the other, if s/he does something wrong. Why? Don't they
have to do _better_ things than that? Might need another
hundred generations - before we finally talk _with_ each
other instead of battling everyone? Don't understand it,
throughout my entire life I always tried to bring people
together, not to divert them.
Maybe I'm in the wrong movie...
>>... 2nd, it should run fast. This point's
>>going to assembler, but modern HLL compilers are not that
>>far away from assembler!
>>
>
>You are missing the same point as so many programmers: An Assembly
>written Application is *not* the translation of an HLL written
>Application. Full Assembly written Applications "may" be *much*
>faster than HLL written ones, not because they are written in
>Assembly, but, because, when writing in Assembly, the programmer
>has a direct view of what he is doing. To make a long story short,
>Assembly is a way of thinking the problem and the solution, and we
>do *not* think the Application in the same manner an HLL programmer
>would do.
>
Most of them are not aware of it - if you know, how your
C compiler "translates" plain C into machine code, there
is the possibility to control the output. That is what I
am doing - replacing the bloated stuff with better code,
written in assembler. So my C programs surely are not in
the line of C, they're hybrids, using C as the interface
to OS/2.
>The KeyWord with this is "Strategy Optimisation". You can not do
>real Strategy Optimisation in HLL because HLL hide you the code
>reality.
>
Agreed!
>A second KeyWord would be "Specific Programming". Just take a
>look at HLA Library, and you should immidiately understand that
>this is *not* Assembly, even if partially written in Assembler.
>
As I said - forget it! If you already know assembler, it
is a joke which makes you cry. If you don't know assemb-
ler, then it is the worst HLL you ever could chose. Much
too complicated, if compared to C, C++, Pascal... I bet,
that C is faster to learn!
>This is typically the HLL way of thinking the solution, instead
>of letting the Programmer think of the problem. If one uses such
>stupid Libraries in Assembly, there is no reason for what his
>Application should be much faster than any decent Basic output.
>But, on the other hand, there are many reasons for what his
>Application could be made much _worst_.
>
Question: Is this a general NO to libraries? They are of
use, if they are used the right way - my opinion...
>>...3rd (today not _that_ important,
>>because users are used to get _bloated_ code), the size -
>>no doubt, who's winning this one
>>
>
>Yes Assembly written Applications are smaller than HLL ones, but
>this point, usually given, at once, with the speed argument, is
>without any importance. As you point out, today Computers are
>much fast enough, and memories and Disk huge enough for making
>durty productions perfectely usable for the end user. So, this
>is really no more a problem. Size and Speed Optimisations are for
>guys who do not understand the problems. This is why i consider
>that the Programmers who think they know Assembly, because they
>may write from time to time, an highly optimized Asm Routine,
>for their C Apps improvements, are not qualified to give asm
>lessons, even if they may be very advanced programmers, in other
>programming areas.
>
Ok - I think I get your point. I know, that I never will
be in a position to compete with most programmers here -
but: Does it mean that I should stop programming at once
and leave the field for the professionals? Wasn't it the
idea behind OpenSource, that even "unskilled" and novice
programmers should have a chance to do something towards
"less proprietary - more free" software? See - I _never_
learned programming at school. Everything I know was the
result of my will to write a software which was matching
the tasks I needed. There was no database which could do
the things I had in mind, so I started to write my own -
there was no sufficient program to cheat in a game, so I
wrote my own.
Was it a sacrilege, to break into the domain of the pro-
fessionals - to bypass them, and ignore their _enormous_
knowledge and mastership? Or could it be, that some fine
day I might have gathered the practical experience to do
the same job? With same quality?
And even if not - it would be a piece of code which does
the thing I need! Maybe hacked together with no style, a
slow and not optimized application - but exactly the app
I need. It exists, it works and I can do the job I want-
ed to do - without waiting for better times...
Sometimes I'm sitting between all the seats, I think...
Have a nice weekend
Bernhard Schornak
Randall Hyde
"bv_schornak" <now...@schornak.de> wrote in message news:b9hknr$rvo$04$1...@news.t-online.com...
> Betov wrote:
> Example:
>
> In C:
>
> {
> a = FDacc(0, 0, 0, FDA_READ, 0, 0);
> }
>
> In asm:
>
> pushl $0
> pushl $0
> pushl $1 # have to get the defined value for
> pushl $0 # FDA-READ, first!
> pushl $0
> pushl $0
> call _FDacc
> addl $24,%esp
> movl %eax,0[address of a]
>
> Reads an entry from a field of my database - I have seen
> the output of GCC as asm source file, it looks _exactly_
> the same as the hand written code. You could optimize it
> a little bit, if you do a direct write to the stack. For
> my taste, the C version is easier to write and to under-
> stand for another person who doesn't know anything about
> FDacc(). At least, if you imagine, that there are multi-
> ple FDacc() calls with different actions and parameters,
> e.g. read two fields, add the entries together, write it
> to another field...
If all you make are system/library calls along these lines,
using assembly language won't buy you anything, that's for sure.
OTOH, if you have the option of writing those library routines
yourself (in assembly, of course) so you can pass parameters
in registers, then it could make a big difference.
Of course, if the program's performance is limited by the database
engine, the speed of your assembly code is immaterial.
>
> >May i suggest you to take a look at some user demos written
> >with SpAsm, and see if, formaly, they do really make that much
> >difference compared to what you would get in any HLL Source?
> >
>
> Does it produce LE executables? Do you supply OS/2's API
> with the appropriate headers? I would give it a try - at
> once!
>
> I never wrote - and never will write - one line of code,
> which is thought to be run in any OS sold by Microsoft -
> and I'm really tough with it - at least as tough, as you
> are with assembler programming! If I don't like the pro-
> ducts of a company, then I _never_ will supply it in any
> way. The only way to fight a company is to ignore it and
> _not_ to feed or supply their products!
You could always take Rene's attitude and claim that your
PE/COFF code is really destined to REACT/OS :-).
> My "IDE" is OS/2's system editor (E.EXE) and three batch
> files
Am I confused? Was not OS/2 M$ code?
Granted, IBM took it over, but...
Certainly you're old enough to remember that before "Evil Microsoft"
it was "Evil IBM" :-)
Let's see, what's better: lost to HLA stupidities where they
actually learn some assembly code, or lost to C++ stupidities
because assembly is absolutely brain-dead.
I hear people complain about HLA's stupidities all the time.
I've yet to see someone post some 32-bit assembly code
(Linux or Windows) that cannot be written in an *equivalent*
fashion in HLA.
Until such code gets posted, the arguments against HLA are
quite weak. After all, you can choose to ignore any features
in HLA that you don't agree with just as you can choose to
ignore any features in MASM, TASM, Gas, SpAsm, FASM, or NASM that
you disagree with.
The other thing that I find so amusing in this argument is the fact that
most of the complaints people have about HLA apply directly to MASM
and TASM, too (i.e., support for the HLL-like control structures).
Other than Rene, I've never really heard too many people complain about
those same features in MASM or TASM, or suggest that they aren't
"real" assemblers because they possess such features.
> >The KeyWord with this is "Strategy Optimisation". You can not do
> >real Strategy Optimisation in HLL because HLL hide you the code
> >reality.
> >
>
> Agreed!
>
> >A second KeyWord would be "Specific Programming". Just take a
> >look at HLA Library, and you should immidiately understand that
> >this is *not* Assembly, even if partially written in Assembler.
> >
>
> As I said - forget it! If you already know assembler, it
> is a joke which makes you cry. If you don't know assemb-
> ler, then it is the worst HLL you ever could chose. Much
> too complicated, if compared to C, C++, Pascal... I bet,
> that C is faster to learn!
????
HLA is not a HLL, despite your claims.
HLLs are generally easier to learn than assembly languages.
So what's your point?
You're saying that learning "pure" assembly (i.e., without something
like the HLA Standard Library) is easier? Wow. Over 10 years
of teaching students assembly language programming (with MASM
and HLA) suggests that you're *way* off base here.
With something like the HLA Standard Library, students can write
functional assembly language programs within hours. Take the library
away, and a simple project like display the value of an integer calculation
they've done becomes a multi-week project.
But even if you wholly disagree with the concept of the HLA Standard Library,
just remember that it's completely separate from the HLA language.
No one puts a gun to your head and forces you to use it. You can still write plain
old assembly language (reinventing the wheel at each turn) with HLA, just as you
can with MASM or Gas. Or you can take Rene's approach and use "cut and paste"
programming rather than using libraries.
Just because the HLA Standard Library exists and makes life a whole lot easier
for those learning assembly language doesn't negate its value. The argument that
this isn't assembly language is stupid. I could do much of what the HLA Standard
Library provides (sans macros) with MASM, Gas, or even SpAsm. Does that,
somehow, turn these products into "not an assembler?" How ridiculous.
> >This is typically the HLL way of thinking the solution, instead
> >of letting the Programmer think of the problem. If one uses such
> >stupid Libraries in Assembly, there is no reason for what his
> >Application should be much faster than any decent Basic output.
> >But, on the other hand, there are many reasons for what his
> >Application could be made much _worst_.
I agree 100%.
The point of the HLA Standard Library is not to allow a user to
write the most efficient code. Rather, it exists to let them *easily*
write assembly code. If your goal is to force users to learn code
in the most painful way possible, making them write everything from
scratch, then your point is well taken. I prefer, however, to teach
beginners assembly language programming a step at a time.
Forcing a beginner to "count cycles" from day one of their introduction
to assembly language is a good way to turn someone off from assembly
language programming. They've got lots of time to figure out that
"writing C code with MOV" statements isn't an appropriate way to
write low-level assembly code <<once they've mastered the basic
programming tenets of assembly>>.
>
> Question: Is this a general NO to libraries? They are of
> use, if they are used the right way - my opinion...
Yes, Rene absolutely says no to libraries.
> >>...3rd (today not _that_ important,
> >>because users are used to get _bloated_ code), the size -
> >>no doubt, who's winning this one
> >>
> >
> >Yes Assembly written Applications are smaller than HLL ones, but
> >this point, usually given, at once, with the speed argument, is
> >without any importance. As you point out, today Computers are
> >much fast enough, and memories and Disk huge enough for making
> >durty productions perfectely usable for the end user. So, this
> >is really no more a problem. Size and Speed Optimisations are for
> >guys who do not understand the problems. This is why i consider
> >that the Programmers who think they know Assembly, because they
> >may write from time to time, an highly optimized Asm Routine,
> >for their C Apps improvements, are not qualified to give asm
> >lessons, even if they may be very advanced programmers, in other
> >programming areas.
> >
The SpAsm source code isn't written in a way that supports your
arguments. After all, you're using all those "IF" statements (macros)
that hide tons of inefficiencies. In past posts, you argue that implementing
the equivalent of a C "switch" statement using if..elseif chains is perfectly
acceptable. The algorithms and data structures I've seen in the SpAsm
source code do not suggest a strong grasp of these subjects. I.e., you're
not in a good position to make such disparaging remarks about others'
ability to teach people how to write optimized code. Especially since you
have no experience teaching a large number of people this subject.
> Ok - I think I get your point. I know, that I never will
> be in a position to compete with most programmers here -
> but: Does it mean that I should stop programming at once
> and leave the field for the professionals? Wasn't it the
> idea behind OpenSource, that even "unskilled" and novice
> programmers should have a chance to do something towards
> "less proprietary - more free" software? See - I _never_
> learned programming at school. Everything I know was the
> result of my will to write a software which was matching
> the tasks I needed. There was no database which could do
> the things I had in mind, so I started to write my own -
> there was no sufficient program to cheat in a game, so I
> wrote my own.
All you need to compete in these discussions is the tenacity
to yell loud and long :-) Skill has nothing to do with it :-)
>
> Was it a sacrilege, to break into the domain of the pro-
> fessionals - to bypass them, and ignore their _enormous_
> knowledge and mastership? Or could it be, that some fine
> day I might have gathered the practical experience to do
> the same job? With same quality?
I'd argue that if you keep at it, someday you'll be doing a better
job with better quality.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Betov
online.com:
> [...] I finally (1992) came to the PC. My
> first programming language was A86, which I used to write
> code - until 1994, when I changed to OS/2.
>
> Starting to write code for OS/2,
A86 was also my favourite tool in the years 80. There are yet
some good ideas of A86 in SpAsm syntax ;)
For the OS debate, as this is a bit out of the thread, if
everybody was considering the things the way you do (first,
the flat end users), this would be really great. Unfortunately
the facts are that *all* flat end users, i have ever seen, only
have Windows at home.
When Windows won the commercial war against GeoWorks Ensemble,
i simply stopped any programming activity.
I only restart recently (1998) the day i saw the ReactOS Project.
I think that this Project will succeed, and this is why i am
using Windows, today, as a developements room.
I would be really glad of beeing wrong, if some other Project(s)
could kill Windows. Be it Linus, OS2, MenuetOS, and the like.
Unfortunately, until no end user will ever use these OS, i will
not work for nope.
Of course, if ReactOS Project had to fail, for some reason, i
can not actually imagine, i would immidiately stop with SpAsm.
But, given the real uge work already accomplish at ROS, i am
quite sure this is the good choice, and the real futur.
>>Yes, i know several Programmers who are today writing Applications
>>in Assembly (not only with SpAsm). I have to admit that those are
>>the very few. But this is not on the fault of Assembly, if C did
>>overflow all of the programming area, whith the oncoming of Win 3.
>>
>>This is on the fault 1) of the Companies, who pushed C, for
>>market rules purpose, 2) of the Programmers themseves who did
>>not resist fermely enough, and "let it go" to hell.
>>
>
> Really? Then - why is Linux written in C (and nowadays in
> C++ in some parts)? Because it's _that_ bad? Don't under-
> stand me wrong - I prefer assembler myself, but - is your
> statement really right - in _any_ point?
>
> C exists _much_ longer than Windows 3.x, and it first was
> developed for Unix!
Sure. My point is that *before* Win 3, i was allowed to write
Asm. *After* Win 3, i was no more allowed to.
Now, for the Linux guys using C, what does this prooves?
That Assembly was dead and borrowed when they started this
Project, and that there was no more enough Asm programmers
for doing the clean work.
SpAsm version,with HLL Macros:
cCall FDacc 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0 | mov D吧 eax
.. or even with PREPARSE Equal
a = cCall FDacc 0, 0, 0, FDA_READ, 0, 0
(even more 'human than the C version, as there is none
of those 'extra Chars' (..).
>>May i suggest you to take a look at some user demos written
>>with SpAsm, and see if, formaly, they do really make that much
>>difference compared to what you would get in any HLL Source?
>>
>
> Does it produce LE executables? Do you supply OS/2's API
> with the appropriate headers? I would give it a try - at
> once!
>
> I never wrote - and never will write - one line of code,
> which is thought to be run in any OS sold by Microsoft -
> and I'm really tough with it - at least as tough, as you
> are with assembler programming! If I don't like the pro-
> ducts of a company, then I _never_ will supply it in any
> way. The only way to fight a company is to ignore it and
> _not_ to feed or supply their products!
I much appreciate your ethical attitude, but, sorry, i have
only three hands, and already much enough work with developping
the SpAsm version specifically targetting ReactOS ;)
> [...]
> Let me tell you something: I believe, that most "modern"
> programmers just are _too_ lazy to switch on their brain
> and code something themselves if it already is available
> somewhere. This, and the commercial race (faster release
> intervals, more profit with less effort) are the reasons
> for the current situation. It's all big business, and it
> is controlled by a few companies who have monopolies for
> a specific part of the market...
Sure. But the main problem is with the end users. You may
write whatever you want. As long as they don't use it...
>>This is typically the HLL way of thinking the solution, instead
>>of letting the Programmer think of the problem. If one uses such
>>stupid Libraries in Assembly, there is no reason for what his
>>Application should be much faster than any decent Basic output.
>>But, on the other hand, there are many reasons for what his
>>Application could be made much _worst_.
>>
>
> Question: Is this a general NO to libraries? They are of
> use, if they are used the right way - my opinion...
NO, it is not a *general* "No". It is "no" to the usage of
Libraries *inside* assembly Developements. We do not need
this. Each time an Assembly Programmer calls for a Library
Function (i do it everyday when calling the OS DLL -this is
not what i am talking about...-), he is runing a Black Box
in a room where he should keep full control on what he is
doing. See for example, the recent answer of Randy, at the
Evil Board, to a user asking for how to have a Random Value.
The Randy answer was to just make a call to an HLA Library
Function. Well, nothing new since the good old time RND we
had in all Basics.
My point is that the programmer has to keep the reality
under his eyes. This is easily done but cut and paste, as
long as, the required tools for such manupulations are made
available. In SpAsm, there is a feature call [Clip], that
enable the user with a kind of Data Base of Source level
Templates. This little tool makes selection and Cut&Paste
as easy as a couple of Click.
Once done, the programmer may eventually adapt, modify the
Template, in order to keep with the Specific Programming
conept. This makes *much* difference.
> Ok - I think I get your point. I know, that I never will
> be in a position to compete with most programmers here -
> but: Does it mean that I should stop programming at once
> and leave the field for the professionals? Wasn't it the
> idea behind OpenSource, that even "unskilled" and novice
> programmers should have a chance to do something towards
> "less proprietary - more free" software? See - I _never_
> learned programming at school. Everything I know was the
> result of my will to write a software which was matching
> the tasks I needed. There was no database which could do
> the things I had in mind, so I started to write my own -
> there was no sufficient program to cheat in a game, so I
> wrote my own.
>
> Was it a sacrilege, to break into the domain of the pro-
> fessionals - to bypass them, and ignore their _enormous_
> knowledge and mastership? Or could it be, that some fine
> day I might have gathered the practical experience to do
> the same job? With same quality?
>
> And even if not - it would be a piece of code which does
> the thing I need! Maybe hacked together with no style, a
> slow and not optimized application - but exactly the app
> I need. It exists, it works and I can do the job I want-
> ed to do - without waiting for better times...
>
> Sometimes I'm sitting between all the seats, I think...
You are preaching the Coran to an Islam Integrist. :)
Betov.
PS. How can you right-align your Ascii???!!!
I just see a bit more dash-lines than usual, but this is
not enough for explaining this unsual performance !^o^!
No additional spaces! Very few '-' cutted words at end of
Lines!
Software choosing replacement words and expressions???!!!
I am stuck...
Thomas L. Christensen
>When Windows won the commercial war against GeoWorks Ensemble,
>i simply stopped any programming activity.
Just a note about GeoWorks Ensemble. In '95 a company names NewDeal
continued the PC version of Ensemble (they called it NewDeal Office).
Later another company - MyTurn.com - used it in a product named
GlobalPC. Both NewDeal and MyTurn.com is dead now, but a third company
- Breadbox - has taken over the pieces, and rumours say they are
working on a 32 bit version of GEOS. More info here:
http://www.geocities.com/originalravinray/geos/history.htm
http://www.breadbox.com
news:comp.os.geos.misc
You can download a lite version (very lite) from Breadbox.
>I would be really glad of beeing wrong, if some other Project(s)
>could kill Windows. Be it Linus, OS2, MenuetOS, and the like.
Don't put your hopes in GEOS... :-(
(Back to lurk mode)
--
Thomas L. Christensen - Svendborg, Denmark
bv_schornak
Would work on a 68k machine with 16 registers available,
x86 is too limited to do this job in a sufficient way. A
reason for me to follow the C convention to pass data on
the stack.
If the database would be written in C, then it would not
be that fast (not assumed, my 1st version was written in
C).
>>>May i suggest you to take a look at some user demos written
>>>with SpAsm, and see if, formaly, they do really make that much
>>>difference compared to what you would get in any HLL Source?
>>>
>>Does it produce LE executables? Do you supply OS/2's API
>>with the appropriate headers? I would give it a try - at
>>once!
>>
>>I never wrote - and never will write - one line of code,
>>which is thought to be run in any OS sold by Microsoft -
>>and I'm really tough with it - at least as tough, as you
>>are with assembler programming! If I don't like the pro-
>>ducts of a company, then I _never_ will supply it in any
>>way. The only way to fight a company is to ignore it and
>>_not_ to feed or supply their products!
>>
>
>You could always take Rene's attitude and claim that your
>PE/COFF code is really destined to REACT/OS :-).
>
I don't lie! ;)
As long as the OS/2 community exists, my code is written
as LE!
>>My "IDE" is OS/2's system editor (E.EXE) and three batch
>>files
>>
>
>Am I confused? Was not OS/2 M$ code?
>Granted, IBM took it over, but...
>Certainly you're old enough to remember that before "Evil Microsoft"
>it was "Evil IBM" :-)
>
WARP 4 includes almost nothing written by programmers in
Microsoft's staff. The break was about 1987 (hope that I
remember it right), where OS/2 1.x was the latest hit. I
know, that IBM also is a company who wants to make money
with their stuff... ;)
>>True, more than true! I'm always thinking about the huge
>>_mental_ potential in all the newsgroups I am subscribed
>>to. If all the people would act together, rather than to
>>fight each other - what a superb software could be deve-
>>loped by them. But instead, almost everybody is watching
>>the other, if s/he does something wrong. Why? Don't they
>>have to do _better_ things than that? Might need another
>>hundred generations - before we finally talk _with_ each
>>other instead of battling everyone? Don't understand it,
>>throughout my entire life I always tried to bring people
>>together, not to divert them.
>>
>
>Let's see, what's better: lost to HLA stupidities where they
>actually learn some assembly code, or lost to C++ stupidities
>because assembly is absolutely brain-dead.
>
See it this way: There is only _one_ C++ standard, which
is kept high by all C++ compilers. And there is no fight
like we have it in the assembler range! If this would be
the case, C++ wouldn't be the current #1 for development
environments!
What would you say (as a student), if the professor says
that you "actually learn some C++ stuff" along with some
other things you probably never will use? Not really the
motivation for learning C++. Same applies to assembler!
BTW - I don't like C++ (the nice form to say I hate it).
>I hear people complain about HLA's stupidities all the time.
>I've yet to see someone post some 32-bit assembly code
>(Linux or Windows) that cannot be written in an *equivalent*
>fashion in HLA.
>
>Until such code gets posted, the arguments against HLA are
>quite weak. After all, you can choose to ignore any features
>in HLA that you don't agree with just as you can choose to
>ignore any features in MASM, TASM, Gas, SpAsm, FASM, or NASM that
>you disagree with.
>
>The other thing that I find so amusing in this argument is the fact that
>most of the complaints people have about HLA apply directly to MASM
>and TASM, too (i.e., support for the HLL-like control structures).
>Other than Rene, I've never really heard too many people complain about
>those same features in MASM or TASM, or suggest that they aren't
>"real" assemblers because they possess such features.
>
Maybe you didn't see it - I'm using GAS, which isn't the
big bummer, because it uses a very different syntax...
Sorry, if it sounds harsh. But meanwhile - using GAS for
about 8 years now - I already have some difficulties, if
I have to read iNTEL style. But if I would have to learn
HLA as an additional language, I probably would prefer a
course in C++ (to get in touch with all that objects and
methods stuff).
It is of course my own, subjective opinion. But you (and
Betov) should be aware, that many spare time programmers
like me may see it similar...
And - to state it again: I _do_ respect your and Betov's
work! It is the difference between doing nothing / being
active with some stuff!
>>Question: Is this a general NO to libraries? They are of
>>use, if they are used the right way - my opinion...
>>
>
>Yes, Rene absolutely says no to libraries.
>
Ok - I will have a look at his own answer...
>>Ok - I think I get your point. I know, that I never will
>>be in a position to compete with most programmers here -
>>but: Does it mean that I should stop programming at once
>>and leave the field for the professionals? Wasn't it the
>>idea behind OpenSource, that even "unskilled" and novice
>>programmers should have a chance to do something towards
>>"less proprietary - more free" software? See - I _never_
>>learned programming at school. Everything I know was the
>>result of my will to write a software which was matching
>>the tasks I needed. There was no database which could do
>>the things I had in mind, so I started to write my own -
>>there was no sufficient program to cheat in a game, so I
>>wrote my own.
>>
>
>All you need to compete in these discussions is the tenacity
>to yell loud and long :-) Skill has nothing to do with it :-)
>
I think, I am able to split up postings into the "yells"
and the "real knowledge" hidden in the code or words. It
is not a specific a.l.a. phenomenon, you will find it in
every other NG, too!
>>Was it a sacrilege, to break into the domain of the pro-
>>fessionals - to bypass them, and ignore their _enormous_
>>knowledge and mastership? Or could it be, that some fine
>>day I might have gathered the practical experience to do
>>the same job? With same quality?
>>
>>
>
>I'd argue that if you keep at it, someday you'll be doing a better
>job with better quality.
>
I hope so!
bv_schornak
>>[...] I finally (1992) came to the PC. My
>>first programming language was A86, which I used to write
>>code - until 1994, when I changed to OS/2.
>>
>>Starting to write code for OS/2,
>>
>>
>
>A86 was also my favourite tool in the years 80. There are yet
>some good ideas of A86 in SpAsm syntax ;)
>
I preferred it, because you could start programming with-
out studying a programming language first. The same thing
applies to GAS (except the syntax - but you will learn it
very fast).
>For the OS debate, as this is a bit out of the thread, if
>everybody was considering the things the way you do (first,
>the flat end users), this would be really great. Unfortunately
>the facts are that *all* flat end users, i have ever seen, only
>have Windows at home.
>
>When Windows won the commercial war against GeoWorks Ensemble,
>i simply stopped any programming activity.
>
>I only restart recently (1998) the day i saw the ReactOS Project.
>I think that this Project will succeed, and this is why i am
>using Windows, today, as a developements room.
>
>I would be really glad of beeing wrong, if some other Project(s)
>could kill Windows. Be it Linus, OS2, MenuetOS, and the like.
>Unfortunately, until no end user will ever use these OS, i will
>not work for nope.
>
>Of course, if ReactOS Project had to fail, for some reason, i
>can not actually imagine, i would immidiately stop with SpAsm.
>But, given the real uge work already accomplish at ROS, i am
>quite sure this is the good choice, and the real futur.
>
Oh, I did not try to start an OS war - things are as they
are, worldwide about 95% of all installations are Windows
in all its variations - it is a fact _nobody_ can discuss
away. Thus, I am the one who's outside the frame, not the
other 95%... ;)
I will have a look at the ReactOS project - AFAIR, it was
somewhat related to the FreeOS/2 project.
>>>Yes, i know several Programmers who are today writing Applications
>>>in Assembly (not only with SpAsm). I have to admit that those are
>>>the very few. But this is not on the fault of Assembly, if C did
>>>overflow all of the programming area, whith the oncoming of Win 3.
>>>
>>>This is on the fault 1) of the Companies, who pushed C, for
>>>market rules purpose, 2) of the Programmers themseves who did
>>>not resist fermely enough, and "let it go" to hell.
>>>
>>Really? Then - why is Linux written in C (and nowadays in
>>C++ in some parts)? Because it's _that_ bad? Don't under-
>>stand me wrong - I prefer assembler myself, but - is your
>>statement really right - in _any_ point?
>>
>>C exists _much_ longer than Windows 3.x, and it first was
>>developed for Unix!
>>
>Sure. My point is that *before* Win 3, i was allowed to write
>Asm. *After* Win 3, i was no more allowed to.
>
>Now, for the Linux guys using C, what does this prooves?
>That Assembly was dead and borrowed when they started this
>Project, and that there was no more enough Asm programmers
>for doing the clean work.
>
Assembler went down the drain with the rising C. Might be
the general tendency to replace knowledge and skills with
automated tools, so the "product" is easy to produce with
less qualified "workers". The same thing which happened a
hundred years ago with the upcoming of production lines -
it's capitalism at its best.
Bad thing is, that people get used to it. And in the end,
everything goes down the drain, because there are no more
people with sufficient knowledge and skills...
>>Example:
>>
>>In C:
>>
>>{
>> a = FDacc(0, 0, 0, FDA_READ, 0, 0);
>>}
>>
>>In asm:
>>
>>pushl $0
>>pushl $0
>>pushl $1 # have to get the defined value for
>>pushl $0 # FDA-READ, first!
>>pushl $0
>>pushl $0
>>call _FDacc
>>addl $24,%esp
>>movl %eax,0[address of a]
>>
>>
>
>SpAsm version,with HLL Macros:
>
>cCall FDacc 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0 | mov D吧 eax
>
>... or even with PREPARSE Equal
>
>a = cCall FDacc 0, 0, 0, FDA_READ, 0, 0
>
>(even more 'human than the C version, as there is none
>of those 'extra Chars' (..).
>
Ok - if you ask me, your version would not convince me at
the moment. But it's a subjective statement. I'm used the
"structured" way I use in C, so your version is confusing
for me. But if you're used to it, then my version will be
confusing for you. What I see is your "cCall" - one thing
I would have to learn, _before_ I can use SpAsm, while my
C version is self-explaining. Might be one advantage of C
that many things are obvious, so you do not have to study
and learn too much. But as I said - it's a subjective im-
pression, bound to my own way to see and understand.
>>Does it produce LE executables? Do you supply OS/2's API
>>with the appropriate headers? I would give it a try - at
>>once!
>>
>>
>I much appreciate your ethical attitude, but, sorry, i have
>only three hands, and already much enough work with developping
>the SpAsm version specifically targetting ReactOS ;)
>
Would be wasted work, anyway. As I told Frank - there are
_few_ chances to convince the mass of OS/2 programmers to
write assembler code. Since I'm watching the OS/2 NGs, no
one (except me) ever mentioned assembler...
>>[...]
>>Let me tell you something: I believe, that most "modern"
>>programmers just are _too_ lazy to switch on their brain
>>and code something themselves if it already is available
>>somewhere. This, and the commercial race (faster release
>>intervals, more profit with less effort) are the reasons
>>for the current situation. It's all big business, and it
>>is controlled by a few companies who have monopolies for
>>a specific part of the market...
>>
>>
>
>Sure. But the main problem is with the end users. You may
>write whatever you want. As long as they don't use it...
>
You win! :(
Sorry, what the heck is "Evil Board"? Please don't let me
die dumb - would be nice if you tell me how to get there!
About libraries. For me a library is a bunch of functions
from one or more object files. Object files are generated
by the compiler from the source files. Thus - if there is
no library, then there are no object files, then all your
code is included in one huge file? There are no functions
in the code, only jumps? I had such code, until I changed
to OS/2. Meanwhile I think, that the separation of speci-
fic functions into several files with defined tasks might
be a much better way to keep track what you're doing. And
the time you lose with the function calls is not that big
deal. Also, improvements are much better to implement, if
there are specific functions which do one thing, but that
one thing they do really good. Instead of writing it anew
slightly modified whenever you need it, which bloats your
code. ;) It depends on the things you're doing, right?
As we have seen in other threads, I'm a pagan (who _does_
respect the beliefs of other human beings)... ;)
>PS. How can you right-align your Ascii???!!!
>
>I just see a bit more dash-lines than usual, but this is
>not enough for explaining this unsual performance !^o^!
>
>No additional spaces! Very few '-' cutted words at end of
>Lines!
>
>Software choosing replacement words and expressions???!!!
>
>I am stuck...
>
Nope, also the work of "brain v 1.0". It's just my way to
learn some more English words - if I write all paragraphs
with a _fixed_ line size, then I have to look for another
matching word, if my vocabulary doesn't offer a word with
the right length. No magic, just some extra work. And the
"formatted" paragraphs might be better to read... ;)
Randall Hyde
"bv_schornak" <now...@schornak.de> wrote in message news:b9iv7f$elt$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
> Betov wrote:
>
> I preferred it, because you could start programming with-
> out studying a programming language first. The same thing
> applies to GAS (except the syntax - but you will learn it
> very fast).
An interesting observation. Most people find Gas syntax very difficult to follow.
(Not that MASM is much better).
Then again, if you don't know *any* language and don't have a reference point
to start with, learning one language is no better than any other.
The big problem with Gas (which also affects SpAsm) is the paucity of documentation
available. Sometimes you have to refer to the Gas *source code* to figure out a feature
in that assembler. Not exactly the best tool for beginners wanting to learn assembly.
And most people who already know x86 assembly abhor Gas syntax. This is why
NASM has become so popular under Linux - it provides an alternative.
While Gas' .intel_syntax directive overcomes many of the problems with Gas (i.e.,
AT&T syntax), the lack of reasonable documentation on the assembler is a real
impediment. Finally, of course, there is the problem that Gas was developed mainly
to process GCC output and it doesn't contain much in the way of a decent feature
set for people who actually want to write assembly language by hand. It's gotten
better over the past five years, but it still shows its roots as the final stage of GCC.
> >>>Yes, i know several Programmers who are today writing Applications
> >>>in Assembly (not only with SpAsm). I have to admit that those are
> >>>the very few. But this is not on the fault of Assembly, if C did
> >>>overflow all of the programming area, whith the oncoming of Win 3.
This will make you cry...
There are *lots* of HLA programmers writing full applications in assembly.
Of course, you don't consider that an assembly language :-)
But as I've always said, the way to increase the number of assembly language
programmers out there is *not* to insist that programmers who are used to
HLLs like C++ adopt draconian 1960's programming methodologies. The
way to convince hoards of programmers to start writing assembly is to make
assembly easier to learn and use. That's the whole purpose of HLA.
Rene, your attitude is completely counterproductive to your desires.
You seem to feel that the only right way to do assembly language is via
"salvation through suffering". I disagree. There is no sane reason on earth
that an assembly language (e.g., HLA) can't take advantage of modern
advances in computer science and employ those tools to make the assembly
programmer's life a whole lot easier. E.g., libraries. Why force a beginner
to create all this code themselves. You complain that HLA's Standard Library
is too much like a HLL. So what? The point is, you need the ability to convert
a numeric value to a string so you can output that value to a file or on a display.
Whether that function uses a parameter set that is similar to one used by a HLL
or uses one that is specific to a given application is irrelevant - the programmer
still needs this capability. HLA provides that capability in the standard library.
So the end programmer doesn't have to figure out how to do this conversion
themselves (and this conversion, btw, is one of the most FAQ in the assembly
newsgroups). Forcing a programmer to learn how to write this code when they
are first learning assembly is a distraction that prevents them from learning
*true* assembly concepts as rapidly. For many programmers, the overwhelming
work needed to create a small set of functional support routines is the deciding
factor that makes them give up on assembly language. And the lack of a decent
set of library routines is the main reason so many programmers today won't write
a complete application in assembly language - it's just too much work to reinvent
the wheel. This is also why programmers today *are* writing complete applications
in HLA -- it provides a reasonable set of library routines that spare them the
pain of having to write all this code themselves. Now you can argue, somehow,
that using the HLA standard library is intrinsically inefficient. And I will be the first
to admit that I haven't gone through all 50,000 lines of code (or so) and counted the
cycles on each and every routine I've written. But some of the more common code
(e.g., many of the the string handling routines) are quite well written and very efficient.
And I'll stack up HLA's length-prefixed string format against the zero-terminated
string format most assembly programmers tend to use any day of the week for speed.
The final comment I'll make about library routines is that any "loss of efficiency" you'd
worry about immediately goes out the window once you make a Windows (or Linux)
API call. OS calls are generally so slow that they swamp the overhead assciated with
pushing parameters on the stack, etc. The only argument that can be made against
using standard library routines (and this *is* a valid argument) is that they encourage
people to write "C code with MOV statements." OTOH, if someone really needs to
write super-efficient code, at least for some section of their program, they should be
intelligent enough to realize this (or else they have no business attempting to write
optimal code) and can bypass that programming paradigm.
> >>>
> >>>This is on the fault 1) of the Companies, who pushed C, for
> >>>market rules purpose, 2) of the Programmers themseves who did
> >>>not resist fermely enough, and "let it go" to hell.
Believe it or not, most programmers gladly embraced the use of HLLs and
were absolutely *glad* to be rid of assembly. People didn't use assembly
language on PCs because it was a wonderful language that made life so much
better for everyone. They used assembly because they *had* to. There was
no other way to get decent enough performance out of a 5MHz 8088 CPU.
Otherwise, they would have written most of their applications in MS-BASIC
or UCSD Pascal (both interpreted at the time). Remember when Borland's
Turbo Pascal first appeared? Overnight success (indeed, IIRC, Borland got into
a bit of trouble with the FTC because they couldn't ship the orders fast enough
and they got so far behind processing orders that people started complaining that
it was a scam). Back in the days of Borland Turbo Pascal v1.0 it was still possible
to routinely write an assembly version of the code that was 5-10 times faster than
the Pascal version; that's not true today (compiler technology has improved quite
a bit since then). And even if it were, most programmers don't care. The fact that
we've got 5GHz machines coming down the pipeline now (i.e., way over 1,000 times
faster than the original PCs) almost makes the pursuit of that last CPU cycle a
worthless endeavor. Because most of the time in a modern GUI app is spent in the OS,
not in the application, attempting to optimize applications from the start is a complete
waste of time. Once again, I'd point out my experiences with the HLA compiler - rewriting
the symbol table search routines in assembly produced a *very* minimal improvement
in the performance. Changing the algorithm produced a dramatic improvement. Rewriting
the improved search routine in assembly (from C) only improved things by about 25%.
What was the point? The speed boost wasn't noticeable when you actually run the compiler.
Let me clue you in - it wasn't the companies who mandated C, it was the programmers
working for those companies who decided they'd rather work in C. Most companies (at that
time) didn't really care; indeed, most of the higher-ups argued for the continued use of assembly
and the programmers working there revolted.
> >
> >Now, for the Linux guys using C, what does this prooves?
> >That Assembly was dead and borrowed when they started this
> >Project, and that there was no more enough Asm programmers
> >for doing the clean work.
> >
Linux was (re)written in C to make it portable (the original code
contained a lot more 386 assembly than it has today, btw).
Also, the whole "Open Source" issue of getting many programmers
to contribute pretty much mandated the use of C because there are
so many C programmers and so few assembly programmers out there
(particularly, those who are capable of writing good kernel code -
lots of assembly hackers, but few good software engineers willing to
do decent coding in assembly).
BTW, what language was ReactOS written in?
> Assembler went down the drain with the rising C. Might be
> the general tendency to replace knowledge and skills with
> automated tools, so the "product" is easy to produce with
> less qualified "workers". The same thing which happened a
> hundred years ago with the upcoming of production lines -
> it's capitalism at its best.
Assembler went down the drain for two reasons -
1. It wasn't necessary anymore.
2. Assembly language development tools did not keep up with their HLL counterparts.
Why would any reasonable programmer want to use command line tools with
technology straight from the 1960's when they've got Delphi or Visual C++ (or C++ Builder)?
Let's face it, using assembly is miserable with most of today's assemblers.
Recently, there have been some improvements in this area.
For example, Rene introduced the idea of a decent IDE for assembly language development.
Ketil Olsen has created the RadASM package that provides and IDE for MASM, TASM,
FASM, NASM, and HLA.
There's also the UeMake add-on for Ultra-Edit32 that provides an IDE for tools like MASM
and HLA.
Then, of course, there are tools like MASM, TASM, and HLA that add modern language concepts
and powerful macro capabilities to assembly language.
And then there's HLA that uses a more modern syntax for the assembly statements themselves.
Complain all you want about how stupid this is for making assembly language look like a HLL,
but the evolution of assembly language syntax and the improvements in the language itself are
a big part of the renaissance taking place in assembly language today. I realize you're anti-Windows
like Rene, but take a look at the Win32Community Assembly language board sometime.
Lots of people writing complete applications in assembly. And they're taking advantage of the
high-level assembly features found in the MASM32 (and HLA) packages. Insisting that programmers
*not* use these features is a *really* good way to convince programmers to go back to using C.
> Bad thing is, that people get used to it. And in the end,
> everything goes down the drain, because there are no more
> people with sufficient knowledge and skills...
Yes, the world changes.
How does it feel to be a dinosaur? :-)
You'd like everyone to keep on doing things the way *you* do them so that you
can participate in all the cool discussions that are going on.
But thinking that A86 and AT&T syntax is the right way to do assembly is a bit
dated, to say the least (then again, so is working under OS/2, I might add).
I'm not going to suggest that you must change the way you work. But arguing that
everything is going down the drain because *you* haven't evolved with the rest of
the world is a bit myopic, to say the least. Lots of people are writing full applications
in assembly language today. And the number of people writing such applications
is increasing on a daily basis. They're just using tools you refuse to consider, so you're
missing out on all the activity that is taking place.
>
> >>Example:
> >>
> >>In C:
> >>
> >>{
> >> a = FDacc(0, 0, 0, FDA_READ, 0, 0);
> >>}
> >>
> >>In asm:
> >>
> >>pushl $0
> >>pushl $0
> >>pushl $1 # have to get the defined value for
> >>pushl $0 # FDA-READ, first!
> >>pushl $0
> >>pushl $0
> >>call _FDacc
> >>addl $24,%esp
> >>movl %eax,0[address of a]
> >>
> >>
> >
> >SpAsm version,with HLL Macros:
> >
> >cCall FDacc 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0 | mov D吧 eax
> >
> >... or even with PREPARSE Equal
> >
> >a = cCall FDacc 0, 0, 0, FDA_READ, 0, 0
> >
> >(even more 'human than the C version, as there is none
> >of those 'extra Chars' (..).
> >
Of course, you do need those extra "=" and "cCall" characters.
What's your point? Avoid anything that looks like C at all costs?
Of course, in MASM you could always write
invoke FDacc 0, 0, 0, FDA_READ, 0, 0
and avoid writing those extra "=" and "cCall" characters too.
In HLA could could write:
mov( FDacc(0, 0, 0, FDA_READ, 0, 0), a );
or, if you prefer to be more explicit about what's going on:
FDacc(0, 0, 0, FDA_READ, 0, 0);
mov( eax, a );
You don't have to play funny games with macros (though you could, if you
want to).
You seem to feel that parentheses are a bad thing. (of course they are, HLA uses them
so they must be bad, right?) Actually, parentheses are a very good thing because they
group together things that belong together (e.g., a parameter list) and make the code
easier to read.
>
> Ok - if you ask me, your version would not convince me at
> the moment. But it's a subjective statement. I'm used the
> "structured" way I use in C, so your version is confusing
> for me. But if you're used to it, then my version will be
> confusing for you. What I see is your "cCall" - one thing
> I would have to learn, _before_ I can use SpAsm, while my
> C version is self-explaining. Might be one advantage of C
> that many things are obvious, so you do not have to study
> and learn too much. But as I said - it's a subjective im-
> pression, bound to my own way to see and understand.
And yet you've complained about HLA.
HLA lets you use a syntax that is quite similar to C's without
having to move up to C. Maybe I'm getting confused because
I'm responding to two posters in the same message, but I seem to
recall that you've said that it's a shame that people have given up on
assembly and switched to C. I also recall you pooh-poohing HLA
as just being some HLL (though I've yet to see you post any code that
demonstrates something you can do with Gas that cannot also be done
with HLA). Now you're saying that the C code is more readable.
I'm a bit confused here.
HLA lets you write your function calls the same way C does.
Or, if you prefer, HLA lets you write your function calls using manual
pushes and calls.
Or, if you prefer, HLA lets you create macros to do funny things with the
calls (though, I must admit, those macro invocations *do* require parentheses,
so you've got to type those extra "(" and ")" characters).
Now what was the problem with HLA again?
> >>[...]
> >>Let me tell you something: I believe, that most "modern"
> >>programmers just are _too_ lazy to switch on their brain
> >>and code something themselves if it already is available
> >>somewhere. This, and the commercial race (faster release
> >>intervals, more profit with less effort) are the reasons
> >>for the current situation. It's all big business, and it
> >>is controlled by a few companies who have monopolies for
> >>a specific part of the market...
Rene, the reason isn't necessarily laziness.
I'm sure there would be a lot of programmers out there who would
consider using SpAsm if only they could figure out how to use it.
I may completely disagree with your attitude towards libraries, but there
are people out there who feel the same way (a lot of FASM users, for
example, question why they need libraries; just visit the Win32ASM
Community Board some time for proof). The problem is that in order
to use SpAsm, a program first has to learn assembly language language
with some other assembler (because that's where all the tutorials and
books are at). Once they've learned MASM or HLA, why should they
bother learning SpAsm. Seems like a lot of work for very little return.
At one time, you had the whole IDE thing to yourself and that was a
sufficient reason for many to struggle with SpAsm. But that advantage
is fading fast with the introduction and improvement of tools like
RadASM and UeMake. SpAsm may still be the best assembly IDE
around, but your argument is now starting to sound like the
"Macintosh OS vs. Windows" argument. The Mac OS is still clearly
the better of the two (from a user's perspective), but the differentiation
isn't quite the same as it was back in the days of MacOS vs. DOS.
You can continue to develop SpAsm for your own needs; and that's fine.
But calling programmers lazy because they won't take the time to learn
*your* assembler is a bit of a stretch. The problem is, *you're* forcing them
to do extra work. They've got to learn MASM32 or HLA in order to write
the programs they want to write in assembly language and then you call them
lazy because they don't want to have to waste time learning SpAsm after they've
taking the time to master MASM32 or HLA. They problem think that you
are the one that's lazy for not writing really good documentation and a tutorial
that they could have used to learn assembly in the first place.
> >>>This is typically the HLL way of thinking the solution, instead
> >>>of letting the Programmer think of the problem. If one uses such
> >>>stupid Libraries in Assembly, there is no reason for what his
> >>>Application should be much faster than any decent Basic output.
> >>>But, on the other hand, there are many reasons for what his
> >>>Application could be made much _worst_.
> >>>
> >>Question: Is this a general NO to libraries? They are of
> >>use, if they are used the right way - my opinion...
> >>
> >
> >NO, it is not a *general* "No". It is "no" to the usage of
> >Libraries *inside* assembly Developements. We do not need
> >this. Each time an Assembly Programmer calls for a Library
> >Function (i do it everyday when calling the OS DLL -this is
> >not what i am talking about...-), he is runing a Black Box
> >in a room where he should keep full control on what he is
> >doing. See for example, the recent answer of Randy, at the
> >Evil Board, to a user asking for how to have a Random Value.
Yes, reinventing the wheel from scratch everytime you write an
application is the right way to go :-)
Rene, wake up!
Why should an application programmer have to figure out all the
complexities of a random number generator (and this is *not* simple)
whenever they want to call a function that generates a random number
between one and ten?
They *could* grab Knuth Volume II and learn all about Random Number
Generators (of course, they'd need a good textbook on probability and
statistics too). Or they could hack out their own random number generator
that will produce incredibly bad results. Or they could simply call a
well-written random number generator in the HLA Standard Library that
produces decent results. Does it really matter that they don't understand
the math behind random number generators?
And I would also ask "what's the difference between calling a random number
generator as a black box and calling a 'file write' API function as a black box?"
Does the end user need to know about block allocation on the disk drive and
about IDE disk drivers in order to make a call to an OS "write" function?
The Windows API provides a set of C-like string functions. What's the difference
between calling those functions and calling the string library functions in HLA
(besides the fact that HLA's functions will probably be faster)?
> >
> >The Randy answer was to just make a call to an HLA Library
> >Function. Well, nothing new since the good old time RND we
> >had in all Basics.
And how is having that poor programmer write his own Random function
from scratch going to improve this. This programmer, btw, is just learning
assembly and is having trouble indexing arrays in assembly. You want such
people to tackle the mathematical complexities of a random number generator?
Quite frankly, all most programmers would do if something like HLA's random
number generator weren't available is they'd dig out a version written in C and
translate that to assembly (without understanding one bit of the underlying math).
How is this better than calling a standard library routine?
> >My point is that the programmer has to keep the reality
> >under his eyes. This is easily done but cut and paste, as
> >long as, the required tools for such manupulations are made
> >available. In SpAsm, there is a feature call [Clip], that
> >enable the user with a kind of Data Base of Source level
> >Templates. This little tool makes selection and Cut&Paste
> >as easy as a couple of Click.
And why is this different than calling a library module (other than,
of course, the fact that the user must now compile this code every time
they assemble their source file).
It's a black box to the user whether they call a module in an external
library or they "cut & paste" it into their code. Perhaps you think that
by cutting and pasting the code you're forcing them to read and understand
the code. You're seriously mistaken there. They probably treat that
code they've had to paste into the monolithic application that SpAsm forces
them to write as an annoyance that makes their code harder to read (because
they *don't want* to have to know how it works).
Under HLA, if the user really wants to see how the random number generator works,
the source code is all there (public domain) so they can study it to their heart's content.
Having libraries, though, spares them the problem of having to cut and paste source code
that is irrelevant to the problem at hand; so they don't have to clutter up their code.
This is the biggest drawback to SpAsm, IMO.
> >Once done, the programmer may eventually adapt, modify the
> >Template, in order to keep with the Specific Programming
> >conept. This makes *much* difference.
No, it doesn't.
Having the ability to link in external libraries doesn't prevent them from making
specific modifications to a library routine. E.g., the HLA source code is all there.
If you want to make specific modifications to the code, you can do so.
Forcing the user to do "cut & paste" does not force them to make specific modifications.
It's just a pain in the arse to have to cut & paste the code that they probably won't modify
anyway.
Worse, encouraging specific modifications makes the programs *much* harder to read
and modify. After all, if "Random" in program #1 behaves differently than "Random" in
program #2 (and #3, and #4, and ...) I really pity the programmer that has to modify
each of these programs. This would result in a hacked-up mess that would make optimization
*extremely* difficult. For example, suppose someone came up with a new random number
generation algorithm that was far better than the one you were using previously. With libraries
(e.g., under HLA), you change the one library function, recompile the library module and relink
it with your existing applications and you're in business. However, if each application has its own
specific modifications to the Random number generator, well...., I guess the programmer would
be considered lazy for not going in and manually modifying every program they've ever written
(and testing the results), eh?
> >
>
> Sorry, what the heck is "Evil Board"? Please don't let me
> die dumb - would be nice if you tell me how to get there!
>
> About libraries. For me a library is a bunch of functions
> from one or more object files. Object files are generated
> by the compiler from the source files. Thus - if there is
> no library, then there are no object files, then all your
> code is included in one huge file? There are no functions
> in the code, only jumps? I had such code, until I changed
> to OS/2. Meanwhile I think, that the separation of speci-
> fic functions into several files with defined tasks might
> be a much better way to keep track what you're doing. And
> the time you lose with the function calls is not that big
> deal. Also, improvements are much better to implement, if
> there are specific functions which do one thing, but that
> one thing they do really good. Instead of writing it anew
> slightly modified whenever you need it, which bloats your
> code. ;) It depends on the things you're doing, right?
Welcome to SpAsm! The *specfic assembler*.
Rene really does expect you to use cut&paste programming
with SpAsm and make individual modifications to the stuff you
paste into your code (see my previous comments, above).
Obviously, there are times when an applicaiton-specific version
of a library module is called for. This is why you want the source
code to your library functions. But Rene seems to think that
programmers who don't do this with every "library" module in
every application they write are "lazy".
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Beth
> ... And what do you expect me to answer???
If I knew how you were going to answer then there'd be no point in
asking the question, as I'd already know what you were going to
say...I wasn't expecting anything in particular, except the answer you
want to give...
By the way, the "straight answer" I was talking about was about my
observation that _both_ HLA and SpAsm - by your own admission - are
"temporarily M$ dependent" and what I was trying to ask was how you
could justify making insults at HLA for being "temporarily M$
dependent" when you then go on to admit that SpAsm is also this
too...I think it's a pretty reasonable question to ask when I see what
seems to be two contradictory arguments from you...perhaps they are
not, though...maybe I've just misunderstood what you were trying to
say and though they look contradictory, they are not...that was why I
asked to see what was actually happening there and give you a chance
to explain it...and, well, I say "straight answer" because, so far,
you're talking all around the subject and bringing in what seems to be
a slightly irrelevent personal attack...and just not explaining this
apparent contradiction...if it's not a contradiction, just explain
this...by not answering with a straight answer, it gives the
impression of guilt...as though it is contradictory and, therefore,
that it probably just an unjustified attack on HLA for the sake of
making an attack on HLA...again, I stress, perhaps not...maybe I've
just misunderstood what you're trying to say...if so, please correct
this misunderstanding and put the record straight that you actually
had a valid point against HLA being "temporarily M$ dependent" which
doesn't apply to SpAsm for whatever reason...
> I believe what i see. Period. I have never said that an HLL
programmer
> was by definition a nobody. You may as well have a very advanced
knowledge
> about programming, generally speacking (knowledge that *i* have
surely
> not...), this does not mean that i have to take care about what you
may
> say about Assembly.
Of course, I would be amongst the first to stress that you don't just
accept something someone says because they may or may not carry the
label "expert"...in fact, I've repeated stressed this point myself
numerous times...pointing out that I would listen to the arguments of
someone who isn't an "expert" at all, using the infamous saying: "from
the mouths of babes..." (babe as in baby...the saying pointing out
that even a baby or a young child - not at all "expert" in life - is
still capable of saying something completely sensible about a
situation...the adults debate and fight over technical points of who
owns what and who gets to own this and that...but the child - in fact,
exactly because they've not become "polluted" by being an "expert" -
just says "why don't we just share?" and instantly scores ten out of
ten for maturity, wisdom, tolerance, etc. making the adults look like
children and the children like adults...every once in a while,
"experts" actually get too caught up in their arguments and can score
an own goal when a complete "non-expert" asks a simple question that
shoots straight to the real heart of the matter :)...I also every once
in a while, "have a go" at Dawkins because he's an "expert" who abuses
his authority to try to get everyone just to swallow his opinions
without questioning them...and I say repeatedly, "question
everything"...only recently I made a post about how _science_ may be
objective but this _isn't_ an attribute automatically inherited by
scientists, just because they deal with science...people are people -
expert or not, acting as an authority or not - so, always, take
everything with a pinch of salt...consider there to be no "facts" when
it comes to the words from people's mouths, even if there are facts
out there which people can talk about (a subtle thing to explain but I
Hope you catch my drift :)...
But that's essentially why I took this as an unjustified personal
attack, rene...it's because I _DON'T_ claim to be "expert" nor any
sort of "authority" on the matter...I strongly make the reverse case
and have said many times that I consider myself merely an "interested
amateur" in _everything_...I know only too well - looking at my own
doubts, failings and ignorances - just how far distant I am from any
sort of unquestionable omnipotence...and it's got to be a known fact
around here that I even have problems with the use of simple words
like "better", "advanced", "forwards", etc. because I don't much like
or feel comfortable with the implicit "hierarchy" notions in these
words (I mean, what sense does "the colour blue is 'better' than an
apple" make? Well, I also have to question what does "men are 'better'
than women" or "Mary is 'better' than John" mean? The first sentence
makes absolutely no sense as a comparison because colours and fruit
are different types...well, men and women are different types
too...John and Mary are different people and everyone's and
everything's "type" is - perhaps only in a subtle way but it's always
there - different types too...therefore, though, obviously, this is
the nature of languages that they are the only words I can use and
just have to tolerate that I don't 100% agree with some of the
implicit notions in them, I even go so far as to challenge that "good"
/ "better" / "best" ("bad" / "worse" / "worst" too, being the
opposites :) just don't actually make any logical sense because they
presume general comparisons of different types can be made...well, I
believe that everything is its own "type" - which may just happen to
overlap on various attributes - so the notion of a general "good" or a
general "better" is something I say with much regret that the
languages we have are based on what I believe are misconceptions...so
much for Orwell's NewSpeak, it _is_ possible to use a language and
still think "outside the box" it creates...although, it does make you
appear to be a very confusing and slightly insane person to other
people, I must confess...hehehe ;)...
So, you see, the sudden "attack" I perceived as an attack because I do
not - and only in gross mistake - claim any sort of "authority" on the
matter...these are my opinions and opinions only...I always try to
make that clear...and it could only be a misunderstanding if someone
believed I was trying to suggest otherwise that I was some
"unquestionable authority" on the matter...any matter...
In fact, the observant will notice a pattern in my writing...if you
quickly glance over it, most people notice their length...but careful
observation will see exactly why they are so long...it's because I
naturally always try to explain, justify and give examples of _why_ I
think something is...it's quite unnatural and difficult for me - which
is why, despite protests, I honestly am incapable of changing my
personality here and producing much shorter posts - to say something
without automatically trying to explain _why_ I've said it, _why_ I
think it's the case, where I heard the fact / rumour / story /
whatever...and a whole bunch of things like that _exactly because_ I
honestly do not in any way consider myself any sort of "authority" on
anything...I relate what I've heard or what I think only...to be
honest, my problem is perhaps the very reverse...that even when I
should be sure, I still express some doubt...even when I should tell
it like it is, I concede that perhaps I'm wrong...
I could have just said "I don't believe that I'm an authority on
anything" here but that seems abrupt to me and that's reason number
one why I do go on and on...I couldn't bring myself to say it as if it
were some "fact" without explaining why, what my opinion on the matter
is and that sort of thing...
I am NOT any authority on the matter...I'm just voicing my opinions
and openly welcome debate on the issue...I'm even known to sometimes
even admit defeat and change an opinion, if the case is clearly
made...I sincerely apologise if, in voicing my opinions on assemblers
and assembly, that anyone has read my words and taken them
unquestioningly as "an authority" and thereby prejudiced anyone else's
opinions or products...honestly...because if that happened, it would
actually be contrary to what I would really want to see most...I would
want to see a person form their own _independent_ opinion...a world
where "experts" just say things and everyone else accepts it blindly
is the last place I'd be happy or feel welcome...that is almost the
underlying theme of nearly every post I've made...such a world is a
world of slavery and has no Liberty at all...and I always capitalise
Liberty to demonstrate just how seriously and how much respect and
importance I believe the word has...equal with Love, there are _no_
real "higher concepts" than them, in my opinion...
> My real way of thinking is that, if you had a real
> knowledge of Assembly programming, you would not be pushing HLA, and
> that i feel allowed to say what Assembly is, and is not.
Well, isn't it presumptious to suppose - if you credit that I might
perhaps be aware of things you're not (and, of course, vica versa :) -
that pushing HLA means I don't have "real" (there's that vague
everyone-defines-it-a-different-way adjective again of "real"...which
means this is bound to get very chaotic as things go on ;) assembly
knowledge?
In a world of only one type, how can you tell if it's good? For
instance, if there was nothing but one brand of white wine in the
entire world and there was no water and there was no other types of
drink or food or anything...the only thing that ever passes your lips
is this one specific type of wine and this one specific taste...then
how can you tell if the wine tastes good? If everything in the world
was one colour - say, red...a world where _everything_ is the exact
same shade of red - then how could anyone have an opinion on what the
best colour is? In fact, would the concept of colour and the word
"colour" even exist for these people...there are no other colours and
there's nothing to compare it to...I could go on but I think you've
probably got the general point here...
So, perhaps it's an experience I've had with HLLs or embedded assembly
or philosophical debate or something...doesn't really matter what but
it's something of a different "type" to what you're used to because
you stick rigidily - which is fair enough - with your one type of
"real assembly"...if you're in a world where, by definition,
everything is red then perhaps it's my experience and knowledge that
other colours like blue and green and purple exist that lets me see
something you don't see...you say you only believe what you see but
it's perfectly possible that you're looking at something but don't
realise what you're seeing...through no fault or error of your
own...it's just that in your world where everything is red, you've not
experienced different colours and, therefore, you simply cannot -
however hard you try or want - understand what "colour" actually is...
You mention that you don't really know anything about pedagogy
because, well, that's just not your speciality...you do other things
instead...this is all good...but then, would it help to remind you, as
I've mentioned before, that - though very short - I did do some
teaching...perhaps I see HLA's teaching aspects as being very good
from a teaching perspective and am, therefore, recommending it (no, I
_don't_ "push" it...that's just your emotional way of phrasing it :)
because of that...
Or perhaps it's actually _because_ I've done large real-life assembly
projects with tight budgets and strict deadlines that I realise that,
sometimes, a theoretical principle has to be compromised for ensuring
practical delivery of a product by a strict deadline...that, yes, as
nice as "real assembly" is as a concept - I approve whole-heartedly -
real-life deadlines and tight budgets (and even a boss' attitudes
forbidding you to do such-and-such because they may personally take a
dim view of "real assembly" and think you'd just be wasting their time
pursuing it) mean that it's simply made _impractical_ for you to
remain "pure" and "real" and, yes, you have to learn to deal with and
accept - for purely _practical_ reasons - that you'll be forced,
whatever your own opinions on the matter, to take shortcuts, use
bloated libraries and tools (because the boss has bought them and
simply refuses to admit it was a mistake could be the, yes, irrational
reason why...but, regardless, working for others in a large real-life
assembly project, you don't always get the options or the authority to
be able to make all the choices you might personally want to make...in
fact, if anything sounds suspicious here, then it's more likely to be
this "real assembly Utopia" where everyone's happy to let you do
whatever you like and take as much time as you like and spend as much
money as you like...those who've done large real-life assembly
projects for commercial companies might actually be wondering how they
let you get away with such unrestricted Liberty to do whatever you
liked...if they did, good for you...but not everyone's going to find
this "you're the boss" situation familiar...again, perhaps another
case of you only having seen a world where everything is red so you
might not appreciate the "colour" of being forced to work with and
under other people who don't share your "real assembly" ideas one bit
and would prefer to use a bloatware library and HLL where possible to
get it done quicker so that they can get home from work earlier ;)...
> This is shocking? Too bad. Too bad for you if you really wrote a
> lot of Asm things and that you can't show me anything, for whatever
> good or bad reason.
No, I'm not shocked...but you appear to be shocked...because you're
just plainly and flatly denying the possibility that someone could
"know ASM" (whatever that exactly means) and recommend HLA in any
context...note, though, that you've gotten adverts from me too,
rene...and not to be overly negative, how many others act as a PR
agent for SpAsm here? And, be careful with those accusations, because
Frank answers HLA questions with newbies and though it's not "his"
assembler (neither is it mine...I'm obscure little TASM usually ;),
he's happy to accept that HLA is what HLA is...and the Art of Assembly
texts are pretty universally recommended by all and sundry (in fact,
don't think I've ever heard a dis-recommendation of "don't read AoA,
it's evil" once around here...sure, plenty who just refrain from
mentioning it and your earlier accusations that Randy just tried to
get personal glory from AoA but no "AoA is bad and wrong and evil"
comments...not even from you...HLA, yes...but I've not heard if you
also think the same about AoA...even the 16-bit version has libraries
and that sort of thing, which you normally are against)...
You're the one who seems shocked because you're more or less admitting
to just standing there with your mouth wide open if you see any
programmer disagree with your "real assembly" ideas...you're the one
who's flatly refusing to accept that someone could have done real-life
assembly projects and also think HLA is okay...you're the one who
launched into a personal attack - not just me but Randy and his HLA -
to anyone who voices their opinions and doesn't agree with you...I
find it very telling too, to be honest, that you used to be pretty
happy and friendly with me when I'd talk about the good of SpAsm and
drop you a free advert...perhaps Randy is looking for personal glory,
I don't know...but I'd also have to be suspicious about whether you're
only after that as well...
> Do not expect any other attitude from me, depending on what your
*are*.
> You may have an IQ much over mine, -geniuses may be stupid also-.
Of course...and, also, I doubt it...no geniuses here, sorry...there
was a "national IQ test" on the TV...I only did reasonably average at
it...I'm just no good at those "rotate the blue square in your mind"
questions and my memory's always been erratic...sometimes I'll
remember the smallest detail and other times, I've forgotten the start
of the sentence while I'm half-way through speaking it...
> You may
> be, as you say, "a lady" -i don't care, if you are gay, yellow, or
green-.
> You may be a leader in embeeded computers or whatever -i am talking
of
> x86 Assembly-. If you consider it a personal insult because i don't
*take*
> what you may say, as it come, take it the way you like.
Not at all; I took it as a personal attack because it was an attack
and it was made on a personal basis - an odd thing for someone who
doesn't care either way to do - and, also, because it appears to have
no justification...I was not claiming any sort of authority, I was
merely asking about an apparent contradiction that I saw...and, yet
still, you are avoiding the straight answer...
I tell you what, don't bother with giving any sort of answer to the
apparent contradiction, rene...because you've had your chance with a
clear indication that this was all I was looking for - a simple
explanation to what seems to be a contradiction - and you launched
into this personal attack, bringing up irrelevencies...claiming that,
contrary to just about everything I've ever said and done that I was
falsely claiming to be an unquestionable "authority" in order to
specifically undermine you...on all counts, that's going to be the
last things you'd ever find me wanting to do...
This explosion has been prompted by a simple question about a
contradiction which, despite apparently angering you, you've
completely avoided addressing in more than one post...so, don't bother
answering, rene...you've effectively already given your answer...
> When i asked the same question to Fodder, to Hutch, to Ed, and so
many
> others, though i suppose, they understood it a bit the way you do,
they
> simply *answered*.
Now who's "expecting"? It may not have been to your satisfaction but I
gave you an answer...I've also given more than one opportunity to
answer me but you've avoided it each time...you don't like the
pressure of the question so you're trying to turn it all around on
me...therefore, even if I instantly had a URL that could prove it all,
there'd be no point because you'd just invent yet another way to avoid
the question...another way to avoid admitting that an earlier attack
on HLA was not justified when SpAsm is in exactly the same position...
> In some way, you are right when considering this a
> personal attack. I clearly mean:
>
> Did you or not wrote, at least, a complete real life Application in
> Assembly. Yes? OK, we may discuss.
Yes; Therefore, we may discuss...oh, except you're not going to accept
that answer, are you? And even if I managed proof that meets your
delibrately awkward criteria then you'd just invent another thing and
another thing and another thing...
Look, I'll save us all the effort...I retract the question about SpAsm
and HLA, and you do not need to answer it or explain the apparent
double standard at all...although, again, rene, you had the
opportunity to promote SpAsm and yourself but decided just to attack
everyone else instead...you already know how that looks...
> No? Sorry, i don't care about
> whatever you way think and say. Period. Sorry if i have put my
finger
> where it hurts you, but this is your problem. Not mine.
On the contrary, I was expressing my opinion and asking a simple
question...you explode with a personal attack because you don't want
any dissenting voices against your opinion and you've not only got
Randy but I often put in my opinion too...therefore, after trying to
destroy Randy's reputation by accusing him of only doing this for his
own personal glory, it's now my turn...
I post my views and opinions on the matter...if you disagree and don't
care about whatever I think or say then why explode in attack? Why
don't you just ignore me? No, quite the contrary...I made a point that
you can't defend with any reasonable answer...this makes me a "threat"
to you steam-rolling your opinion all over other people until they
agree with you...thus, you are countering the "threat" by doing
exactly what you tried to do to Randy - your other "threat" to ramming
your opinions down people's throats - that of personally accusing him
of all manner of things, such as narcassistic self-promotion and no
interest in his "pupils" or in assembly (despite clearly plenty of
evidence that he can't be doing that or he's really going the total
wrong way about it...straight off the bat, you wouldn't be anywhere
near assembly if you're just looking for an academic name for
yourself...assembly is not just obscure to some academics, it's
outrightly ridiculed and mocked, for Pete's sake)...
Quite the contrary, rene...you really, really can't take disagreement
and seem perfectly happy to destroy and ruin anything in your path,
merely for the "personal glory" of removing everyone who says "I don't
think you're right" so that your opinion appears correct because it's
not challenged because you've wiped out any "competition" on your
opinion being King of the castle...I repeat, you claim to be anti-M$
and globalisation and such but you seem just as sociopathic - not
caring how you win your opinion as "the one and only" opinion - and
you seem just as keen to wipe out competition...a shame that you've
got M$'s same inferiority complex and paranoia because, otherwise, you
had exactly what it takes...independence and free, original thought,
the will to try, the want to raise assembly, etc....and it's all
ruined because, somewhere deep down, you want the "assembly rebirth"
stamped with "(C)copyright Betov" so only you can do it
single-handedly and if anyone else is threatening the possibility of
your name - your personal glory - being taken off the assembly
rebirth, then you're going to attempt to destroy it...
> Also, to me, as long as i have not *seen* it, it does not exist.
You've never seen air, how do you breathe? You can't see the
electricity now driving your computer running through its wires, how
are you reading this? You can't see people's thoughts in side their
brains, how do they have opinions? You can't see gravity (because
there literally is nothing to see :), only its effects...but when you
built your houses, rene - a noble and admirable craft, by the way...if
not to you personally, we're indebted to your ex-profession for having
warm, dry comfortable homes to live in and those are totally sincere
sentiments - didn't you account for gravity to stop it falling down,
didn't you account for _future_ weather patterns by installing a roof
even though you could not in any way _see_ that it would rain, hail or
snow in the future, didn't you account for stresses and strains but
which certainly couldn't be seen whilst you were building because they
only build up to cause wear and tear and damage over long periods of
time?
There's millions of things that can't be seen but exist
nonetheless...during your life, you must have depended, avoided and
even exploited hundreds of unseen influences...
> For example, i have seen Randy "Assembly", and all i can say is that
> this is *not* what i call "Assembly". So, "this" may explain "that",
> in my attitude...
Fine; This is your opinion and I'm the first to defend...and that's
not just talk because I _have_ been the first to defend your right to
express your opinions, even when you were approaching causing gross
upset and offence...even when everyone else made jokes about you and
walked away, I defended that right...how quickly people forget and how
easily they take things for granted...
This is not what you call "assembly"...that's a perfectly valid thing
because there's many ways to define terms, no-one really 100% agrees
with anyone else and it's all a "fuzzy" classification (most
classifications actually are like that)...at no point do I want to
silence that opinion nor force my definitions to "override" yours...
Simply, though, we can't say the same thing in reverse now, can we?
[ snip ]
> > A straight answer or step down...your choice...
>
> For the Randy case, *I SEE* and i have done nothing but saying what
i
> have seen: This is a big sh*t packet, with a pretty pink ruban
around
> saying This is the work from a Master of Art of Assembly
Programming".
So much for the straight answer, you're very first words are a change
of subject over to just giving us your opinion of HLA...again...we
know it, we've heard this before...well, okay, you've gone a little
further by now using curse words but, otherwise, this is all old
stuff...and it's not a straight answer at all, is it?
But, anyway, if you want to bring this up then let's talk about this
instead (as I doubt this straight answer will ever actually show
up)...for the pure sake of argument, let's assume you're right...let's
pretend that Randy is looking for personal glory alone and doesn't
care about anything else...let's say he's purely narcassistic about
this all...well, who gives a flying fudge?
I mean, it's not a personal thing, really, is it? Maybe Randy stares
in the mirror all day long and is totally narcassistic as you keep
trying to ruin his reputation by claiming (an easy accusation for
anyone who's work is well-known...this is the same tricks tabloid
newspapers do to ruin celebrities too...they can't defend that,
whether they like it or not, they are in the public eye because it's
part and parcel of being a celebrity...or, in Randy's case, of being
the author of a well-known successful work)...
Are there people approaching at least considering assembly programming
because of HLA who would have not touched it with a bargepole
otherwise? Yes, there are...are there people who forced to do assembly
on a course, actually start to enjoy using it with HLA and then pursue
assembly (perhaps leading to them eventually finding your "real
assembly" and using SpAsm in some cases)...yes, there are...are there
people happily using HLA and thankful for his work? Yes, there
are...does Randy have a text in Art of Assembly that addresses
programming questions for people learning about assembly? Yes, he
does...
Fine, so we'll pretend you're right and Randy's only doing it to get
himself famous or something...it doesn't matter one bit what Randy's
like and his personal motivations if HLA itself does good work...I've
heard that Jack Nicholson is actually a pain in the butt as a person
but who cares about that when he's such a damn good actor? Now if I
was to meet the man, _then_ it's a personal thing and we worry about
it...but it has absolutely no bearing on the excellent quality of his
acting that he may or may not be a bit of an arsehole of a person
behind his acting face (although, he's an excellent actor...perhaps
it's all part of the act to gain himself that infamous reputation, as
all the rumours keep him in the publicity and that helps to further
his career as an actor because people are always talking about him and
want to see his next film ;)...
Let's say Randy decides to "retire" from assembly coding and go off to
become a Tibetan monk or something...and in his place someone
volunteers to keep HLA and AoA going and does much the same
job...different person so what Randy's personally like has definitely
no bearing on the matter...HLA is still HLA, though...what say we
then?
And, heck, if we boycott everything who's creator / author /
manufacturer is only out of personal riches and personal glory
then...ummm...we'd be buggered...those who built my computer here
weren't doing it for the "greater good", they were doing it to make
some money to make a living...the electricity company doesn't pump
power into my lightbulbs for free because it's a "nice" thing for them
to be doing...nope, they charge me for it so that they can make money
and make a living...I pick up a book...look, Stephen King's name is in
absolutely massive print on the cover...it's bigger than the name of
the book, for Pete's sake...he's definitely rich so why does he still
write books at such a rate of knotts as he does? Personal glory and
success, perhaps? What about all those Edisons out there working on
their inventions? Riches? Personal glory? Are we going to boycott,
basically, _everything_?
Sorry, but the only person I'm absolutely 100% sure was doing what she
did with no thought for fame or reward was Mother Teresa...well,
unless, of course, you count Heaven as a "reward" and her obviously
strong and comforting relationship with God...there's more than just
fame and fortune for people to seek out in this world...
So, even if you were right about Randy and I simply believe you're
not, then it really wouldn't make any difference to _HLA_...it might
make a difference to actually talking with Randy himself but HLA isn't
Randy...it's merely Randy's work...
> Recently i saw several posts from beginners falling in the HLA trap.
> I also saw the nice, friendly and constructive answers of Frank and
> friends. I also saw all of the things at the Evil Board for HLA.
Fine; So, basically, you've been busying looking at things...
> I have to say that, what i saw, at that time, made me fall into the
same
> desesparate mood, as when i saw the so easy and quick victory of the
> international crime organisation, in the recent Irak events.
Okay...but, personally, I don't think there's a comparison and there
is a clear priority of war and human lives above, basically, _any_
trivial everyday thing...after all, if war and / or terrorism ends up
killing us all then what use is some small dispute about what "real
assembly" actually means...
> I am now in the opinion that Randy's Plan is going to work: He will
> really have a Publisher for his horror. Young guys will effectively
> buy that shit. The guys *want* to buy things. I recently had some
> pain to believe mine eyes, when i discovered a link for *buy* TASM
5.
> And it seemed to interrest some guys. I don't know if i have to cry
> or laugh when seeing such things. Mental desease has no end... so,
> whatever i could now say would be like preaching in the desert. The
> rebirth of Assembly is going to be much slown down, and all i could
> do to try to fight against this situation would result in nothing
> but spoiled time for me, and as you say, only achieve in covering
> the SpAsm Project with an 'politically incorrect' color.
I do actually know the feeling, rene...seeing something you believe is
terrible unfold in front of you and be quite, quite powerless to do
anything all that useful to stop it...a total lack of control...it's
not a nice feeling, granted...but you're not the only one who has to
put up with such things and who's mood is pulled down by it
all...lately, much of the world knows this feeling and those who've
been concern about nuclear weapons, corporate globalisation and the
environment have been stuck feeling like this for decades with no end
anywhere in sight...
But you don't give up the fight...giving up on such things is giving
up on humanity and giving up on yourself...so you can't give up or, in
a sense, you'd already be six foot under...the price of our Liberty is
eternal vigilance...there is no "giving up" or even, really, "dropping
our guard"...
> So, let Randy win his stupid personal glory. Let the young guys run
> on a no way road. Let Assembly go on his reducing way. Let all good
> wills and efforts be spoiled around.
Don't give up...the road is long and the road is hard but it's got to
be walked or you're simply not going to get anywhere...the yellow
brick road laying out the nice and easy way to your destination is but
a story...things don't work like that...
But you don't attack Randy and try to ruin his "personal glory" (which
I don't believe actually has anything to do with anything)...put it
this way, if _you_ were only out for personal glory and some young
upstart came around and spoiled your chances by ruining your
reputation, what would you do in return? Ruin them back? This is point
number one to demonstrate that Randy isn't what you say he is...and it
also makes the point that, in truth, the only way to win the battle is
to deny that it exists...sounds odd, I know...but if you start a "war"
then you're going to have to take casualities...for every strike you
may make then you can expect "an eye for an eye" (perhaps more) in
return...
You'd be a valiant warrior, perhaps...but a warrior of a
wasteland...it's like using nukes to invade a country and steal
land...go right ahead because by nuking it, you'd actually make it a
wasteland that's not worth owning...or it's like taking a baseball bat
and trying to beat someone into Loving you...in order to stop your
brutual insanity, they may start pretending to Love you, perhaps, but
it's all fake, as in their heart they loathe you more than anyone else
for what you've done...
"When two tribes go to war, _one_ is all that you can score", to quote
a Frankie Goes To Hollywood song...
> About one year ago, when i was talking of HLA, at least, i had to
> admit, that, as a "Learning/Teaching" Tool, i had nothing to say
> about -as i know nothing about pedagogy-. Now, i also could, because
> *I SEE*. I see, for example, those recent posts about
Multi-Dimentional
> Arrays in HLA. I did not answer anything, because i did not
understood
> first, if it was a joke, or what -I first thought Randy had payed
> someone for playing the user...-. Then, i have read the evolutions
of
> the thread, and the answers,... and, frankely, i have been really
stuck
> to death:
>
> 1) Nobody told him to use an Assembler.
It's not my choice or right to do so...Paul's made his own decisions
and I will respect them...I'd much have preferred using a MASM / TASM
/ NASM syntax to make my example because I'm not too familiar with
HLA...but Paul said that he was writing the adventure game to _learn
HLA_...so, telling him to use MASM and giving NASM example code is not
answering a question about _HLA_...Paul did not ask for an opinion on
whether he should use HLA or not and if this is his personal choice
then, fine, I will respect him and his choice, whether or not I would
personally agree with it or not (in truth, I'm indifferent...I
honestly think there's not really enough difference between all the
assemblers out there to make it as much of a big deal as everyone acts
as though it is here...generally, I'd recommend people towards HLA,
SpAsm, NASM and, yes, I must really get around to looking at FASM
(which will probably be part of the list too...I've just not got
around to looking at it properly yet), as this is the way forward...I
see "assembly rebirth" as more to do with all these good quality free
software assemblers...the general revival of interest in
assembly...the enthusiasm to take things forward, try out new
ideas...and, yes, I always considered you to be right at the front of
that drive...
I don't think the assemblers we have now are going to be any "_the_
assembly rebirth assembler", if you catch my drift...this is the
experimentation, the revival, the boulder of rebirth starting to be
pushed...these are the prototypes which are showing all the various
options and paths available...the next generation will take on-board
the best of these options and really start the "rebirth"...actually
making inroads into mainstream appearances, instead of just relegated
to just us here debating things over and over...
Revolutions take a long time...the person who starts a revolution is
rarely the person who ends it...and, of course, everyone eventually
needs to be "on board" and going in the same direction or it's just
not any sort of "rebirth"...the seeds must be sown today but the tree
will not spring up out of the ground overnight...
> 2) Nobody told him that there was no Multi-Dimentional "anything" in
> a Computer Memory.
Well, I did say that RAM is effectively just one big "array of
bytes"...
But it's actually a matter of perspective, anyway...my RAM is on more
than one memory chip and that is physically 3D as a 1D or even 2D
physical object can't actually exist in our reality...RAM's divided up
into segements, pages, cache lines, different chips on the memory
board and, inside the chip, no doubt divided up even further and
eventually ending up all over the chip in 3D physical space...
Pedantic and irrelvent? Not necesarily...if you're using assembly and
wanting totally optimal code, you'll often see someone like Terje
Mathisen or Paul Hsieh think and talk totally in terms of cache lines
and alignment to pages and such, walking straight through any
"transparency" that software is supposed to have with
hardware...because for really optimal "to the wire" performance,
"transparency" like that is useless and, yes, it does make differences
to perform to align things in a way that the hardware actually can
more easily and quickly deal with...in these sorts of terms, is it one
dimensional? Every memory access in protected mode goes through the
GDT (and / or LDT) table(s) and an x86 memory address has two
independent components - a segment and an offset - and, yes, in flat
mode, we can ignore this sort of thing...but flat mode is where we're
delibrately logically "switching off" the mechanisms of the CPU in
order to get ourselves a nice simple "flat" one dimensional array of
bytes...the CPU itself - the hardware - isn't actually thinking in
those terms...what about memory mapped devices like the VGA card
mapping itself to the address space? With the whole Northbridge /
Southbridge redirection, which means, no, it's not simply flat and
laid out one dimensionally in reality...that's merely a simplified
software view for easy, "transparent" programming...but all these
sorts of divisions and deferments are real, effect performance and, at
least by any physicist's or mathematician's standards, constitute a
multi-dimensional problem...for instance, physicists modelling someone
riding a bike decomposed the whole thing into a 27 dimensional
problem...this is what physicists are like, though...most would take
the software approach and try to simplify it into 1, 2 or 3 dimensions
which is easy to visualise and comprehend...physicists, on the other
hand, seem to think its easier to decompose it down into however many
dimensions just happen to be in the problem and have their own clever
mathematical notations to make such absurdly multi-dimensional
problems (relatively) "easy" to do...and I'd guess that in comparison
to riding a bike, the dimensions of a memory access problem - segment,
offset, page, cache line, level 1 cache?, level 2 cache?, Northbridge,
memory mapped?, AGP?, PCI?, I/O port? (goes down the same bus lines,
after all), Southbridge?. etc., etc. - are going to make a 27
dimensional problem like riding a bike seem child's play...
Anyway, Paul just didn't seem that stupid or clueless to me, at
least...it was more a question of how to do it in HLA - a syntax
thing - rather than him not comprehending what memory was and how it
was laid out and such...I didn't go into that because it seemed to me
like he already understood _that_ aspect of memory...and the problem
was all about how to get around to programming it using HLA...
As Frank just pointed out to me, he came up with using what's
effectively a linked list without any prompting from anyone...that
doesn't sound like someone who's completely clueless about the RAM
side of things to me...the question was more about not knowing how HLA
goes about these things than not knowing how things are roughly laid
out in memory...
Anyway, it's all right there in the first few chapters of Art of
Assembly in black and white...looking at his code and what he's said,
he's read those chapters...no need to tell him what he already knows,
is there? :)
> 3) When the poor guy finally found out (by himself!!!) how to do it,
> he thought that his way was nothing but a durty hack, and nobody
> told him that this was the only known way in Assembly, and he must
> be yet convinced that there is some other way for
"Multi-Dimentional"
> things in Assembly. Oh! My Goat!!!!!!!......
Well, in my case, I just offered a slightly different way of laying it
out instead, where the whole "multi-dimensional" problem just doesn't
arise at all...and all the various offsets are simply pre-calculated
as static pointers in the data...I actually never got around myself to
ever really talking about "multi-dimensional" anything because I took
the easier approach of just re-thinking the problem
instead...cheating? Not really...re-thinking a problem in completely
different terms is central to good optimisation and how lots of ASM
programming actually goes down in practice...plus, sometimes you can
back yourself into a corner with a mountain of a logical problem to
surmount...sometimes, the better solution is just to back off and look
to see if there's a nice, flat path that completely avoids the
mountain altogether...
As I like to twist the famous saying, "if you can't beat them, then
just start playing a game you know you can win"...joining them, as the
original saying goes, _is_ actually admitting defeat...my version
actually gives you a way to change things around so that you gain the
upper hand :)...
Anyway, personally, I never mentioned these things because my reply
was delibrately showing Paul a slightly different way to do it where
"multi-dimensional" doesn't really come into it at all (well, okay, an
array of records _is_ multi-dimensional but records allow you to
access them by name and pointers can be precalculated using their
symbolic names so you don't really need to be doing all those run-time
calculations at all, in fact...that's what I was posting to point
out...I might indeed have mentioned the points you've said here _if_
that was the direction I was going down but I was actually making the
point that there's more than one way to skin a cat so showing a
different "non-multi-dimensional" way was what I was actually doing
:)...
> So, no, really, HLA is, not only, not an Assembler at all, but it
also
> is not even a decent learning tool, at all. Just a set of illusion
in
> the HLL manner. And then??? This is just 'funny'? Let us be nice
with
> the poor HLA beginners? Well let you be nice if you like to, and let
> them die with their mouthes open on no mean questions.
Oh dear, you've gone back into "fire and brimstone" mode, calling for
deaths again...that's a distinctly worrying thing when you do that,
you know, rene...it's good and interesting to talk to you here but
bumping into you on a dark night in an alley? Well, when you're in
this "fire and brimstone" mode, it doesn't sound like a wise idea...
Anyway, one example of one person having one slight problem with a
mostly logical issue while happening to use HLA does not constitute
proof that HLA doesn't work as a learning tool...and, hey, you
yourself just pointed out that Paul actually worked out a solution for
himself...just him and HLA and the AoA / HLA documentation...so, it
did work, just it didn't happen instantly for him...you yourself has
got to have been in the situation, debugging code, when you hit a
problem you initially can't really understand what's wrong...then,
probably, you spot that it was just a typo or you put something in the
wrong order and it's fixed...why should Paul be any different because
he's using HLA?
No, you're desparately grasping at any straws you can find to give you
something to make compaints about HLA with...sorry, doesn't matter
what assembler you're learning with, there's going to be moments of
"ummm, I'm stuck!"...but which you eventually re-think and realise
what is what and can carry on...the fact that HLA is no different -
and not some "miracle" where this never can happen - is hardly any
reason to say that HLA should be blown to pieces and every beginner
who looks at it viciously killed...man, do you have a short fuse...
> PS. Ah, by the way, Hutch leaved the Evil Board recently. A bit of
> good news in this sad world, as this event will have no other effect
> but making FASM the first Assembler, in that room.
Any particular reason for Hutch leaving? Disagreement or other
commitments? Not illness or anything, I Hope...
> After this pleasant event, i had some Mails exchanges with Hutch for
> trying to convince him to stop his stupid redistribution of MASM,
but,
> as you may guess, with no success. Well,... I may try to, anyway...
> Good news are not falling each day. (Bad news,... yes).
Oh well...another day, another dollar...que sera sera...you do have my
sympathies for all this depressing news, of course, rene...but I still
don't really agree with you...
Beth :)
ben schwartz
applications.
I am retired now so I can take as long as I like to implement an
application. No one is paying me for
my time.
In my former life the problem was not so much to make my application run
faster (we could
analyse running code, see where the time was being spent and clean it up if
the effort paid); the
real problem was in the time to implement and maintain an application. I'm
sure you have
noticed how, in the past 40 years, vendor application packages have replaced
inhouse solutions,
and programmers have been replaced by package installers and configurers.
If I could justify an inhouse-written solution I would have to explain not
only why it was cheaper to
install my code but how my code and documentation could be maintained easily
enough to make
the risk of my departure manageable.
In that environment it would be faster in many ways to use [object or
source] library code than to write it:
the library code may have [subtle] bugs but it has already been "debugged"
and has survived being
included in other applications. Among other favorable aspects, it has
documented interfaces.
Cut-and-paste cannot provide that because it cannot guarantee that I have
cut correctly or pasted
where I should have. So, library code is more likely to be clean than my
from-scratch-or-pasted
snippet. But, as another favorable aspect, it already exists. How do I
justify spending time to reinvent,
or at least reinsert, assembler code that solves a specific programming
problem when that problem
has already been solved?
Once upon a time machine time was more expensive than programmer time and we
spent hours desk-debugging.
But people time to implement a project has been the bottleneck for decades.
Every minute I spend reinventing a solution
increases the cost of the solution and makes it more likely that a vendor
package will do an adequate job
for less money and more manageble risk.
An argument for and against libraries did not even make sense in 1963 when
we were writing machine language on
computers that stored both data and instructions on drums (the physical
location of each instruction on
the drum had to be planned carefully so that the next instruction would be
under the drum head at exactly the
time that the current instruction finished executing; else you would lose a
whole drum rotation every time that piece of
code was hit). Even in those primitive times there were libraries of
routines to do division (hardware division was too expensive to implement
because it wasn't executed frequently enough to justify the change in
circuitry),
and to handle tape and card I/O [not even called IOCS yet]. No one yet used
the term "reusable code" though I must admit that there were HLL's even then
(FORTRAN was already old and I remember reading Knuth's documentation on the
UNIVAC "SolidState" computer implementation).
So, the point of this long harangue from a real dinosaur is that it is a
fine thing to write beautiful original code for yourself or your own small
company. Enjoy it. But the cost is too high for the world if we hope to be
paid for it.
For those of us still hoping to get paid for the work we do, and enjoy
doing, we must use every good
resource we have. Libraries are no less of a job-saving resource than a
good compiler and IDE.
But, to quote Lee Marvin in "The Wild One,": "Oh, the shame of it all". I
must admit after all that I have probably
written more lines of assembler subroutines and functions, assembler and
PL/I macros, and Korn shell dot-sourced
code, for my own and other programmer's use, than I have of stand-alone
application code.
"Randall Hyde" <aoa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:b9jcrp$fon$1...@news.chatlink.com...
bv_schornak
<...>
Perhaps you should figure out first, to whom you're replying,
then post the reply to the appropriate person?
Betov
$a24.5...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net:
So, your request for some "straight answer" is about the question:
>"... how you
> could justify making insults at HLA for being "temporarily M$
> dependent" when you then go on to admit that SpAsm is also this
> too..."
Well, i did not answer to this, because i did not understood this
was the question.
Where did you see me attacking HLA *for_being_M$_dependant* ???
In some answer(s), i have written that SpAsm was not targetting
Windows, but ReactOS. Nothing else. This true that, for me,if
SpAsm was targetting Windows, this would really be a shame in my
own life. As i answered to Bernhard, if ROS would have to fail, i
would not go on maintaining SpAsm, and i would stop any programming
activity, as i already did in the past, as i don't believe that
any of the other OSes alternatives will ever succeed to kick
Windows out. If i had been in the opinion that Linux may have a
small chance of success, i would have first written SpAsm for
Linux. Unfortunaltely, though i had been *very* anthousiast with
Linux, in the first days, i now have lost any hope with it.
These considerations have no other mean than saying why *i* am
"temporarily M$ dependent". Zero relationship with my attacks
against HLA, which, by the way, is much *less* M$ dependant
than SpAsm actually is.
> ...and the Art of Assembly
> texts are pretty universally recommended by all and sundry (in fact,
> don't think I've ever heard a dis-recommendation of "don't read AoA,
> it's evil" once around here...sure, plenty who just refrain from
> mentioning it and your earlier accusations that Randy just tried to
> get personal glory from AoA but no "AoA is bad and wrong and evil"
> comments...not even from you...HLA, yes...but I've not heard if you
> also think the same about AoA...even the 16-bit version has libraries
> and that sort of thing, which you normally are against)...
Facts:
* AoA 16 has been a universaly accepted Assembly reference.
* AoA 16 was usable for all x86 Intel syntax Assemblers.
* AoA 32 is targetting HLA (and not the reverse as Randy lies).
* AoA 32 is more or less unusable for any Assembler but HLA.
* I have *never* seen one single Asm32 programmer recommanding
AoA32.
* I have seen *many* times Asm32 programmers recommanding AoA16,
considering the lack of Asm32 Tutorials (at times when AoA32 was
already there).
Now, for the quality of AoA 16 and 32, yes, there are many things
i may dislike. But this is not a problem. Randy can not please
me and everybody. Another fact is that we *need* someone like
Randy for writing such Tutorials. Historically, this was Randy.
Well, OK to me. I would only have been happy, and would have
nothing to say, if, instead of his attempt of breacking the Asm32
programming (by covering and breacking all commonly admitted
syntaxes), he had really written an AoA32 in a generic manner.
This was what *everybody* was expecting from him. By the way,
i would not to have to spoil my time doing it again for SpAsm.
Unfortunaletly, this was not enough for his personal glory,
and he felt in urgent need of breacking all of the house with
HLA.
Well, ... Loud applauds!!! Great!!!... :(
>... I must really get around to looking at FASM...
Yes, you *must* :)
This is a very good Assembler. Tiny, very fast, clean syntax
(close to perfect, IMO). The outputs building approach is *very*
intelligent, and highly flexible.
The only problem is with the Licence. I just hope that, when
Thomasz will have undertood that he will never make much money
with the donations he expects to have with this, he will make
it GPL, (or at least public domain, if he is really in the same
feeling as Randy with the GPL -...-), so that i, or another one,
will not have to rewrite it all again...
Betov.
bv_schornak
>>>>As I have been reading the one or other posting from you,
>>>>I would be interested in one thing - do you really think,
>>>>that _today_ somebody - except you - will write an entire
>>>>program in pure assembler?
>>>>
>>>Of course, and... why not? Your reasoning for "why not" (below)
>>>are... "personal perspective oriented", and not in the least
>>>applicable to... myself, for example.
>>>
>>Just practical considerations, bound to the lifetime left
>>for the things you want to do...
>>
>Believe me, I'm acutely aware of the limited-time-allotment. One
>lifetime is simply not enough to pursue everything any given individual
>may become interested in. Music has been my first love, since I was
>a five year old child, but... I became engrossed in a variety of other
>areas as well (including electronics, and digital electronics lead me
>directly to Assembly Language programming <g>). Too many hats,
>and only one head...
>
Sounds a little bit like my own history. I started almost
with the same interests. Depending on the time, there was
no other choice left... ;)
>>>>Regardless if you write code for Linux, OS/2 or Windows -
>>>>_why_ should anybody be that cruel to her- or himself and
>>>>code all the procedures, the filling of structures, calls
>>>>to any windowing function in assembler?
>>>>
>>>For the same reason that s/he got into programming in the first
>>>place - because they like it. That you view 100% Assembler as
>>>some form of cruelty, is... well, I just don't agree, but I've also
>>>encountered plenty of people who felt that being required to
>>>learn hexa-decimal was cruel and unusual punishments.
>>>
>>Please look into the "bubblesort" thread to get some more
>>details about my programming history...
>>
>Yeah, I follow most (most) threads in here. The (hexa-decimal)
>comment wasn't pointed in any particular direction, just a general
>observation... as it relates to perspective.
>
I'm able to take a lot - as long as you do not overdo it.
Very few exceptions exist, but in general I try to under-
stand the position of others and question my own point of
view, if I hear another opinion. Not that I change my own
opinion with every discussion, but I don't expect, that I
always have the only truth, and I'm able to see, if I did
something wrong (hope so!)... ;)
>Incidentally, my first computer was an Atari 800XL (I also had a
>400, which... really, doesn't count, as it was essentially a cartridge
>game console... membrane keyboard, no OS... no nothing... just
>game carts and a pair of joysticks). The 800XL had no means of
>mass storage (so, any BASIC programming was a one-shot deal),
>until, one day I modified a cassette player/recorder, with what
>essentially amounted to constructing a modem. It worked! I was
>beside myself with that, but I was in Seventh Heaven when I got
>my first floppy disk drive.
>
The pioneer's passion! :)
>>>>It would take you
>>>>a huge amount of time to do so, even if you use cut&paste
>>>>to do some repetitive work...
>>>>
>>>Simply - I disagree, but I'll concede that it ultimately depends on
>>>how good one is, at thinking in terms of processor instructions
>>>and memory organization, and applying that thought process to
>>>the task at hand.
>>>
>>You're right in some parts. My intention is to write some
>>applications, not to pray the prayers of any "language" -
>>there are so much ideas I would have to realize, but this
>>can't be done, because I simply don't have the time to do
>>it. Would need 2 and more lives...
>>
>
>Again, I understand, but... it doesn't take *every*body the same
>amount of time. Lots of people are very fast and efficient at cranking
>out working asm code.
>
Yes, my first thought was a little bit one-sided. It's my
pragmatic way to see things - if I see, that I can save a
lot of time, if the stupid and repetitive work is automa-
ted, then I let the C compiler do it. I know, how to code
it manually, but if the result is the same, why don't let
the machine do all the stupid work, and leave me the time
to do more important (or interesting) things... If people
decide to do the stupid work on their own - why not, it's
their decision. But - honestly - isn't it like carrying a
lot of packages from one pallet to another pallet instead
of using the fork lifter? It could move the entire pallet
with one gulp! ;)
>>>There are, likely, plenty of people who don't understand why
>>>an artist would spend so much time producing a painting with
>>>brushes and meticulous effort, when the "guy down the street"
>>>cranks out "paintings" with rubber stamps.
>>>
>>>Same with music. Why bother spending the time (that is, a lifetime)
>>>learning as much about music and one or more instruments, when
>>>we have machines and software that'll do all "the hard stuff"?
>>>
>>>Why should somebody put forth so much time and effort practicing,
>>>and honing skills, in the hope of one day being able to play like
>>>Midori, when the "guy down the street" sounds just like her, and all
>>>*he* has to do is press a few keys?
>>>
>>See <http://schornak.de/music/index.htm> and tell me some
>>more stories about (my?) music! ;)
>>
>
>Are there *any* programmers who *aren't* also involved with music? <g>
>(an interesting side note - IBM used to seek out exactly those types of
>individuals : programmers who were also musicians... or vice versa.)
>
Didn't know that! But they might have had good reasons...
Programming and music. Could be, that there's a relation.
Both need a lot of creativity, if you develop "new" stuff
(no remakes or re-used code). The only big difference is,
that I don't bother to use once written functions again -
but I never would use the same melody in two songs (maybe
it will happen by chance, but never intentional).
>Anyway... I downloaded "Side A". It's... well, not really my cup of tea,
>though I can appreciate the energy (plus, I thought System Change
>was pretty cool).
>
It's my favorite, too. A little bit of my "real thing" is
shining through there. I prefer to play a lot with sounds
and melodies. The record was influenced by the singer - I
had to make a _lot_ of compromises. "Quality"'s more than
poor, 'cause the guy who played the sound engineer wasn't
very good and the whole LP was recorded in 8 or 10 hours,
with at least 4 tracks per song played by myself (it gave
the "dense" sound - there are at least 3 guitar tracks in
each song, most times 4 or 5)...
>>>I'd suppose "the guy" also feels that the student is subjecting
>>>him/her self to some form of cruelty... (?)
>>>
>>>>I am not a fan of HLA - reading some of the examples made
>>>>me think, that I would go C++ (I hate C++!) rather than I
>>>>would use HLA! But there is C (still one of the most used
>>>>programming languages), which makes GUI programming much,
>>>>much easier (and way faster).
>>>>
>>>I disagree, but it obviously depends on one's familiarity with
>>>the API.
>>>
>>See above - I'm a pragmatist...
>>
>
>As such... well... in a parallel sense... Ok... I despise Real Networks.
>Very little will so easily elicit feelings of disgust so easily as seeing
>that stupid Real Player icon in someone's system tray area. Now, if
>the "real audio" format was the only thing recognizable in the over-
>whelming majority of (online) computer users... My options:
>
>a) be satisfied with the comparative sprinkling of those who can
> read mp3 (or whatever).
>b) be satisfied with only those who visit my house, or heard me
> perform live.
>c) bite the bullet, and use RA so my music can be heard by the
> largest audience.
>
>If I didn't care whether or not my music was heard... well, what's the
>point in the first place? Nevertheless, if that *were* the case, then
>(a) or (b) (or none of the above) would obviously suffice.
>
>As a musician, the Internet offered a dream-come-true scenario,
>and... *as* a musician, and one who *does* desire to be heard...
>option (c) would find itself fully embraced as a means to an end.
>
>As a programmer... the same, obviously, applies, and I'm not sure
>how I could use the "pragmatic" argument in defense of <some
>element> while cutting myself off from the overwhelming majority
>of those who might experience my work (not to mention cutting
>my*self* off, being unable to experience the creative efforts of
>others).
>
I would never use a proprietary way to publish my stuff -
things I do are thought to be shared with everyone who is
interested in it. Using RealAudio (in this example) would
mean, that people (like me) who can't run RA are _locked_
out. At this point I definitely say "NO" to RA! I have no
ambitions to become famous, those times are over.
My philosophy is the "pool of mental wealth" - I've taken
so much out of it (as everybody else did), so it is up to
me to give something back. May it be a song or a program,
an algorithm or a chemical formula - everybody is able to
give something in return - to share our _real_ wealth! It
has nothing to do with material riches - it is worth much
more than anybody could ever pay...
Thus, if some people appear and claim they are the owners
of a part of this pool now - let it be Microsoft, REAL or
IBM (yep!) - then I really don't like it (from the bottom
of my soul). And the only way to show 'em that they can't
take away common property is to ignore them completely! I
know that I'm acting against my own beliefs, as long as I
use OS/2, but there is a long history, and IBM isn't that
big threat for the free developers than Microsoft or REAL
prove to be. If IBM would start the _same_ crap - I would
change to Linux (or ReactOS, if it can do the jobs I want
to do) at once!
<side note>
I think, MP3 meanwhile has beaten RealAudio, OggVorbis is
on the run, because it provides better quality - may take
some time, but it has good chances to beat MP3.
Probably I didn't get the clue what you wanted to say, so
forgive me, if I didn't hit the spot...
>>>>Why should I use assembler,
>>>>if all kernel and GUI calls are using C as their default?
>>>>
>>>I don't understand that statement... kernel and GUI calls
>>>are "using" C? What does that mean?
>>>
>>Nearly all of them are written in C (C++), most calls and
>>structures follow the C conventions (or are part of C it-
>>self), except the OO stuff, using "higher" HLL dialects.
>>
>
>So?
>
Related to? ;)
>[...]
>
>
>
>>>>Application programming has to follow several lines. 1st,
>>>>it should be easy to code.
>>>>
>>>"Easy" for who? Joe Blow, or a seasoned programmer...?
>>>
>>I am a "seasoned" programmer! So I'm "2nd" class now?
>>
>
>Well... I'm somewhat "seasoned" (though fallen behind, and by
>*no* means an expert) in Assembler, but I'm most definitely Joe Blow
>when it comes to the Windows API, which has a direct bearing on
>the "easy to code" part of application programming. Once you
>know how to call the Windows API... the use of Assembler is,
>in and of itself, a rather moot point in the "easy to code" argument
>for someone who is a seasoned Assembly Language programmer.
>
I'm a truck driver, so I can't claim to be a programmer -
and I'm not an "expert" for sure. All the API stuff needs
a lot of patience to learn and understand, but you can do
it, if you practice it! That's my way: Learning by doing!
If you do all API stuff in assembler - I still do not see
any advantages. Let's start with the message handling:
WinProc(hwnd, msg, mp1, mp2)
{
switch(msg)
{
case xxxxx : {
...
break;
}
case yyyyy : {
...
break;
}
...
}
}
Now translate it to assembler. The C compiler generates a
jump table for the cases, then uses _one_ JMP instruction
for all cases. If you want to write this code in asm, you
have to calculate _all_ entries for this jump table your-
self. You know, how many time you need to get the offsets
for all jumps, if you have about 50 different cases - and
if you debug WinProc(), then you have to _calculate_ your
table again and again, each time you change one opcode in
the entire function! You may use
MOV eax,dword[EBP+0x0C]
...
CMP eax,0
JNE case1
...
case1:
CMP EAX,1
JNE case2
...
instead - it doesn't need the jump table - but this isn't
better than a C compiler's output. Most of this windowing
stuff is using switch statements and function calls. It's
not the question if I can do this in assembler - I'm able
to do it, anyway - it is a question of the time (and time
is precious) you spend with it. And the way I use is much
more effective than both extremes - either pure assembler
or pure C. It is less time consuming and it produces fast
and small code. Of course, it is my way, and I don't want
to convince anybody to follow me.
But - wouldn't it be worth to think about it? Using C for
the program "skeleton" doesn't mean, that you turned your
back to assembler programming - not at all. I am still an
assembler programmer who uses C - not a C programmer, who
uses assembler (maybe as "inline" code)!
>>>>the size -
>>>>no doubt, who's winning this one. But the result of "2:1"
>>>>for assembler doesn't mean, that it is used in our modern
>>>>application programming. Sad - but true! In modern times,
>>>>people don't have the time (it _costs_ money) to put much
>>>>effort into assembler. They prefer C++ or Visual Basic or
>>>>other crap, because it saves a lot of time, and you don't
>>>>need to know everything about the machine.
>>>>
>>>You have hit the nail on the head, but... I interpret it differently.
>>>
>>Why don't "assemble" it? ;)
>>
>>(Means - take it as I wrote it...)
>>
>
>What I mean, is, along with the "cost" factor as it relates to putting
>much effort into Assembler... there's also the will, the drive, the
>desire to become the best that one can be (at whatever). *So*
>many people want a shortcut. They don't want to spend the
>time actually learning. They want to get from point A to point B
>without expending the same effort of those who came before.
>
Which is _not_ wrong, as long as they have learned how to
walk upright and use their own feet to walk. It isn't bad
if you use a _car_ to go 500 miles. But, my impression of
modern programmers is, that they never have learned using
their feet - they were born behind the steering wheel and
probably will die there...
>They pick up a guitar, and when they can't play like Joe Satriani
>in a couple of days... they put it down and move on to the next
>quick fix candidate. That, or they become acquainted with the
>"push button"... "solution", adopt it, and scoff at those who *did*
>put in the time.
>
>What I mean, is, I also factor "laziness" into the analysis, and
>that's something that runs absolutely rampant (particularly--though
>absolutely not limited to--much of today's youth).
>
My point, too! The only thing I wanted to say is, that an
"orthodox" view isn't very helpful, either - we shouldn't
deny anybody to do a job in individual ways. The result's
counting, not the way!
I don't support or appreciate people who are stealing the
work of others - may it be music, programming or whatever
else. Everybody should create own "things" - not copy the
already existing stuff. If there's no sufficient imagina-
tion - then leave it be. It is a sad thing, that too many
people spend their money with purchasing "recycled" work.
>>>>Before you ask - yes, but meanwhile hybrid (C+asm). ;)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Whatever trips your trigger, I always say. But, have a look at
>>>the two programs, here:
>>>
>>>http://www.theproduct.de
>>>
>>>
>>I will check it later - have to go to work now... :(
>>
>
>Unless you watch it on someone's recent Wintel box... sadly, you'll
>miss it. It's *very much* worth seeing.
>
Booting my Win98 (long time ago that I did it last time).
Starting the program on the first page, left picture. End
of being happy. Very seldom event - even for Win98 - that
a program confuses the entire PC in a way that my Windows
keyboard (three keys: CTRL, ALT and DEL) didn't work. Not
very convincing...
>>>If Microsoft employed nothing but programmers such as these
>>>guys... Windows XP could probably be delivered on a couple/
>>>few floppies. <g>
>>>
>>>It's not just a shame, it's a downright travesty. It's a slap in the face,
>>>that those at the helm of big business which feeds off the masses,
>>>have succeeded in demeaning that once highly sought, highly
>>>regarded human quality called "skill" and (especially) "creativity"...
>>>Oh... unless, of course, one's creative skill happens to be in devising
>>>a better "push a button - sound like Jimi Hendrix" contraption, or,
>>>in this particular context, "push several buttons - and out pops
>>>a computer program".
>>>
>>Nope, that's what I hate the most, believe me! I (myself)
>>can't make a statement about my creativity - would not be
>>very humble or so -
>>
>
>Aww c'mon <g>. Honestly, I think people can remain objective about
>their own efforts. Perhaps not 100%, but... liking what you do, and
>expressing as much, doesn't have to sacrifice humility. Coming off
>sounding like a blow-hard and a jerk, is one thing, but...
>
Oh - I do my thing, and the valuation is up to the users.
Most of my programs were written for special tasks needed
somewhere, and they did their job... ;)
>>but I _do_ have a lot of ideas... See
>><http://schornak.de>. Sad thing is, that my life is short
>>and limited...
>>
>
>Another sad thing is, I won't be able to experience your ideas.
>
>Back when the whole Windows vs. OS/2 drama was taking place...
>Well, to make a long story short... I dropped all my Ziff Davis magazine
>subscriptions, as it was painfully obvious that they were all nothing
>but one big Microsoft endorsement, and had absolutely no credibility
>as far as I was concerned.
>
>(that said, I actually do like Windows XP Pro... for the most part.)
>
Maybe someone else ports it to Linux... :-D
Yikes! Ziff-Davis is "sponsored by Microsoft", didn't you
know it? In Germany we have about 100 computer magazines,
but only _one_ which really is independent - and it's the
most sold! [c't, <http://heise.de>]
>>>Uhh... the people who use VB (or some such)... are they still
>>>taught what the "B" in BASIC stands for?
>>>
>>>All I can say is, thank *goodness* there are people who buck the
>>>trend, and I can only *hope* that their (really, already impressive)
>>>numbers will continue to increase.
>>>
>>Hope so, too - and I'm surely not your foe!
>>
>
>Didn't mean to imply as much, though I realize "the tone" was
>perhaps a bit strong... here and there (the whole "C vs. Asm"
>issue always gets my feathers ruffled <g>).
>
No problem - as long as you don't call me Rene - like Mr.
Hyde did... ;)
_Why_ "C vs. asm" - try "asm together with C"!
Beth
> Betov wrote:
> <...a lot...>
>
> 1:0 for you - it seems...
Oh, come on, he's just avoiding my point about him insulting HLA for
something that he now admits that SpAsm actually does too...it's just
distraction tactics, trust me...
> As I have been reading the one or other posting from you,
> I would be interested in one thing - do you really think,
> that _today_ somebody - except you - will write an entire
> program in pure assembler?
Not rene here...but, yes, people today will write an entire program in
pure assembler...on a desktop? Hmmm, maybe not...but in the limited
space of an embedded system? You might simply have absolutely no
choice in the matter because nothing but ASM will be able to squeeze
it all up in the limited space...
"Buy more RAM"? Well, if we're talking about an embedded processor in
a video recorder or washing machine then that's not a simple
matter...going up a processor or adding in a larger motherboard or
more chips or whatever will bring the price of it all up and has to be
worked in the design because, well, the CPU and stuff has got to be
put into a box with lots of other components...and customers wouldn't
be happy with a washing machine twice the size of anything other and
costing a noticable amount more, just to afford some programmers the
luxury of C...
Again, with a desktop machine, our specifications are basically
already decided...it's a modern PC so we can happily assume it's an
x86, that it easily has more than 16MB RAM, that it's sure to have VGA
but probably came pre-packaged with an 3D accelator card of some
sort...you know the sort of thing...PCs follow their own progression
forward and people buy what's in the stores and then we programmer
work to what people have bought...
Well, the embedded situation is not that clear-cut...it's likely that
the decision of what CPU and what components to include is entirely in
our hands...you have to weigh up cost, size, support, cost and
availability of replacement chips, what little compartment of space
the designers have left for us to stuff our system into, once they've
put in all the video recorder and washing machine components plus all
the curved plastic moulding stuff to make it look good on the outside
so people want to buy it because it looks cool...there's a lot of
decisions and most of them end up as trade-offs...older chips tend to
be smaller and cheaper but, yes, they are not as capable and there is
the prospect that the manufacturer might pull support if it's really
ancient...the old "sorry, darling, you just can't get the parts any
more...you'll just have to chuck it out and buy a new one" thing that
repairmen often say...
And using ASM can often make the difference between using one chip or
another one because it can be used to squeeze smaller sizes and better
performances out of the lesser chips...lesser, no doubt, but generally
smaller and less expensive...I'm not sure what the prices are like now
but Z80s were being used in so many systems at one point that they
were mere pennies...go out and buy the latest Intel chip, there's a
significant price difference because the prices of technology tends to
drop like a rock to the bottom of the ocean...and that difference in
price all has to ultimately go onto the price the customer pays...will
customers happily pay an extra $100 on top of what everyone else
charges for no appreciable difference in functionality because the
more expensive chip was used merely to support the bloat and worse
performance of a HLL rather than deliver anything new that a lesser
chip with ASM coding couldn't also deliver in the rival's washing
machine? Generally, no, the customer won't pay for that sort of
thing...the desktop market is somewhat unique in that people are happy
to keep upgrading their machine as a matter of course, anyway...
It's not just this element to it...embedded systems can often be
_real-time_ systems and need to deal with fast-paced events occurring
in reality...events that won't wait for the CPU to spend time copying
values into stack frames for no particular reason...in this arena, ASM
is often the only feasible choice because of the _type_ of performance
needed (note, it doesn't always necessarily need to be continual and
very fast to qualify as a "real-time" system...the event might be
infrequent but when it happens, the CPU needs to be on the ball and
utterly ready to react in tiny fractions of a speed...for example,
some sort of safety system may actually spend the majority of its
life - maybe even all of it, if no emergencies ever occur - just
sitting there ever ready for trouble and danger...the event may only
happen once but it might be absolutely imperative that the safety
system kicks in as instantly as is physically possible...to switch off
a swirling blade, to stop radioactive leaks, to dampen an explosion
and all that sort of thing...situations that won't wait around for
stack frames to be created, parameters to be pushed, library functions
to be called which waste time doing things that could be better done
when there's some period of inactivity and it doesn't slow down any
instant reaction needed...blah-blah-blah :)...this can save people's
lives so it's distinctly non-trivial...but, yes, it might not be
something that instantly springs to mind when you're only really
thinking in PC and desktop terms...
Even on desktop systems, we might not be using ASM all the way through
a program - it might link up with some C code - but there are places
where only ASM will do...or, at least, if we don't use ASM then the
specification goes up and something could become
unfeasible...remembering that if the specification is too high, then
not a lot of people will have the latest and greatest so you're
cutting out parts of your target audience...cut out too many potential
customers and will there be enough sales to cover the costs?
Not a thing to be taken too lightly...reading a copy of Edge magazine
(a games developer magazine...always an interesting read on the
train...issue #121 in this case, which also devotes the whole issue to
the theme of sexism and women in games and games development...a very
interesting issue :), I've found out what Abrash has been up to
recently...he's been working with others on a pure _software_ 3D
renderer that, apparently, delivers very impressive performance
considering its all done 100% in software...and we can be sure with
the levels of performance reported and, of course, the fact that it's
_Abrash_ who's been working on it, that it's full of "bare to the
wire" code and absolutely no shame in using ASM at all...
Why have they bothered to do this? Because someone actually conducted
a survey to actually check the grand assumption games developers had
been making that everyone was running their games on superfast nVidia
cards...turns out the true statistics weren't quite so rosey...the
cards reported back by the people in the survey as being used were one
generation behind what the games developers had been
assuming...oops...worse, there's a surprise statistic in there that
many users didn't know or understand about switching from the default
software driver to selecting "OpenGL" or "DirectX" drivers, even when
they had the hardware...it turns out that Valve discovered that 40% of
their users were running Half-life in software rendering mode for one
reason or another (a case for the game itself doing the enumerating of
devices and looking for the best stuff automatically, methinks...but
Half-life has it as a manual setting, hence the figures ;)...and for,
as the article puts it, "mass market" games like the Sims, they want
the broadest possible audience and absolutely zero problems getting
the thing to run on just about any machine...hence, again, software
rendering can come in handy...
And, sure, a word processor can work to simple "good enough" terms
because, basically, even 286s are overpowered for simple text input
and spooling things to a printer...but what about something like video
editing? Or ray-tracing a little animation for a TV advert? Or other
highly processor-intensive things (applications that, basically, don't
think in "good enough" terms but think in "feed me, Seymour" Little
Shop of Horrors terms...no matter how much power you feed it with,
it's always hungry for anything more you can give it...there being no
such thing as "too much" in these terms ;)...
> Regardless if you write code for Linux, OS/2 or Windows -
> _why_ should anybody be that cruel to her- or himself and
> code all the procedures, the filling of structures, calls
> to any windowing function in assembler? It would take you
> a huge amount of time to do so, even if you use cut&paste
> to do some repetitive work...
Granted, it'll take more time but are we perpetuating a myth by
calling it a "huge" amount of time? Filling in structures is somehow
vastly more complicated in ASM than in C that it'll take twenty times
longer to do? Ummm, all due respect and everything, but how exactly?
Here's some comparative code:
C first:
-------------- 8< ------------
typedef struct {
int Field1;
int Field2;
int Field3;
} EXAMPLE;
const EXAMPLE Example = {
1, 2, 3
};
void Func(void)
{
Example.Field2 = 3;
Example.Field3 = 5;
}
-------------- >8 ------------
MASM-compatible version:
-------------- 8< ------------
EXAMPLE struc
Field1 DWORD ?
Field2 DWORD ?
Field3 DWORD ?
EXAMPLE ends
Example EXAMPLE < 1, 2, 3 >
Func proc
mov Example.Field2, 3
mov Example.Field3, 5
ret
Func endp
-------------- >8 ------------
It's almost literal 1:1...and even if we use "real assembly" so that
rene's happy, as he wouldn't consider MASM a real assembler, things
aren't really vastly more complicated and time consuming...
NASM-style version:
-------------- 8< ------------
OffsetField1 equ 0
OffsetField2 equ 4
OffsetField3 equ 8
Example dd 1, 2, 3
Func: mov [ Example + OffsetField2 ], 3
mov [ Example + OffsetField3 ], 5
ret
-------------- >8 ------------
Look! It's actually less lines of code! And, again, merely a more or
less 1:1 translation of syntax...
Now, granted, more generally, C will probably have an edge in
development speed terms but not by this mythical "huge amount"
everyone talks about...I suspect that if people really are saying
"huge amount" then it's more about not programming enough in ASM to be
able to work through it quickly...after all, when you first encounter
C and first start using it, it's also not that easy to just
steam-roller your way through some code in the blink of an eye
either...
One of the true problems with ASM taking longer is that people
automatically assume and insist on using highly optimised code
straight off the bat and, as Randy excellently goes into the details
of in his "Great Debate" text, _optimised code_ is the true culprit
there, not ASM...highly optimised code in any language is horrible and
slow to code up, debug and stuff...the problem then is more
psychological than anything else that those who code in ASM
immediately feel they have to code the most highly optimal routine in
the entire universe or they might as well use C...and, pray tell,
where did the concept of "good enough" which we were happy to work to
with C disappear?
HLLs do have an edge in development time terms but it's an edge
only...there's not as big a gap as people often make out that there
is...look at those Iczelion Windows' tutorials in ASM about setting up
a window and look at the C code equivalent...it is different and the
ASM code is longer but it's very much a case of translating it line by
line in most places...and, if you're quite happy and used to using ASM
for these things, you can code this stuff up at comparatively similar
speeds to a C coder...
As for using libraries to handle the interface for you and
things...well, HLA has such a library coded in ASM...if you've the
time to make the investment, then code one yourself and re-use its
code as often as possible (if you can afford the investment then you
do "get your money back" on the returns :)...in fact, this is really
where the big difference between ASM and HLLs shows up in development
speed terms...but, again, it's psychological...if you're happy to use
library code then nothing stops you using the HLA library or even all
those very same C libraries you would have used coding with C,
anyway...as noted, the Windows' DLL files are C code with a HLL
"stdcall" interface to using them so there's certainly no real
problems using HLL libraries from ASM code...
If you're not happy to use library code then that's _your_
fault...well, not "fault" exactly...but what I mean is you reap the
consequences of your decisions...it's also perfectly possible for that
same attitude to be taken with a HLL like C...you could also say to
yourself "I'm not using any libraries, I'm going to code this all by
hand"...it would be just as tricky and take just as long...in fact,
doing it this way, you might hit some I/O situations where you'll
_have to_ go to ASM to get the job done...those C libraries you were
calling also have to do that too, you know...it's not "magic" or
anything...it's merely work that be pre-written for you...all that
applies to HLLs in this instance, applies equally well to ASM...
In fact, ASM falls down on one score and one score alone in
comparison...the C code can be re-compiled on an iMac, for
example...the ASM code cannot because it's processor-specific...but,
otherwise, if we look at C and ASM, then this really is the only major
difference...and this is not accidental, by the way...C was written
for coding UNIX...Kernighan and Ritchie's book about the C language
does go into the sizes of machine words and the decisions made in the
language design...effectively, C is designed as a sort of "portable
ASM"...a machine independent language but _only_ as high-level as was
needed to make it machine independent...once that's achieved, it goes
no further and delibrately has no I/O functions at all...everything is
supplied by library...
> I am not a fan of HLA - reading some of the examples made
> me think, that I would go C++ (I hate C++!) rather than I
> would use HLA! But there is C (still one of the most used
> programming languages), which makes GUI programming much,
> much easier (and way faster). Why should I use assembler,
> if all kernel and GUI calls are using C as their default?
First off, actually, they don't...Windows' DLLs use "standard call" as
their default...C compilers for the Windows platform have to be
capable of dealing with the standard call calling convention or they
won't be much use...now, when you use your C compiler, it's possible
to code away and not notice this fact...but that's only because the
Windows header files you've included have little declarations like
"WINAPI" and "CALLBACK" in them...if you go back to where "WINAPI" and
"CALLBACK" are #defined, you'll see it actually equates to whatever
your compiler uses to specify the standard calling convention...on my
Borland compiler, that's "_stdcall" (a non-ANSI extension to the C
language, you'll note...tried compiling the Windows headers with
strict ANSI compatibility switched on? It _won't_ make it through the
header files, they aren't ANSI compatible...heck, MS's most recent
header files for XP even include _inline ASM macros_ directly inside
them in a whole bunch of complicated conditional statements to make
sure they are only compiled when we've got an x86 chip, of course...
Now, where the confusion might be coming from is that Microsoft
themselves do, indeed, use C and C++ to code Windows (or this is what
they tell us and there's no need to doubt them on this particular
score :)...but the DLL files which compose the Windows API are
supposed to be sort of "language netural" so they use the so-called
"standard call" which isn't related to any particular language...C and
Pascal compilers do actually have to written so that they can use
standard call (though, it's quite similar to the Pascal calling
convention, other than naming and how it deals with variable-sized
parameter lists...standard call starts behaving like C for
variable-sized parameter lists, Pascal convention just says "no! It is
blasphemous!" and refuses to deal with it ;)...
> Does it make sense, to replace five lines of plain C with
> let's say fifty lines of assembler?
How many times must men be told this? Size doesn't matter...it's not
how much you've got, it's what you do with it..._quality_ before
quantity...
It's not how many lines of code nor is it how many characters are in
those lines nor is it the length of what's written...it's all to do
with what those five and fifty lines of code just happen to be
doing...
It may make perfect sense to replace five lines with fifty...or it may
not...the numbers alone cannot ever tell us the answer to that little
puzzle...does it make sense to replace five apples with fifty medium
rare steaks? Not if you just happen to be a herbivore, as your
disgestive system can't handle steaks, even if there's an awful lot of
them...but, yes, it would make the perfect trade if you're a carnivore
and can only eat meat so the apples are useless to you...what about
omnivores like us humans? Ah, well, that's an interesting conumdrum
because, again, the numbers alone still cannot answer the question for
us...if you've not eaten for days and have a ravenous appetite then,
surely, the fifty steaks would be the better deal...but it's not clear
cut that more is always better...if, on the other hand, you were a
fashion model looking after your figure and sticking to a diet to make
sure you stay slim so that the fashion designers will hire you to
model their clothes and you can make youself a living...or if you've a
heart condition and clogged arteries and strict orders from your
doctor to stay away from fatty foods...then those five apples might
not just be the better deal, they might literally be your life or your
livelihood...because, you see, _everything_ is relative...
Will those fifty lines end up vastly improving the size and
performance of the program by an order of magnitude? Will it be half
the size and run ten times as fast? Is this actually an application
that we want to be half the size and ten times faster? Do those five
lines actually buy us portability? What with? Do we need to port this
code to a washing machine? Will the fifty lines of code be re-useable
in another program and the five too specific to this application to be
of any use to us again? Or is that vica versa? Are we paid by the hour
or are there "performance related" bonuses linked to how many lines of
code we write? Is there any end to these questions? I can actually
answer the last one...yes, I'm stopping the list right now...but, no,
there's plenty more questions along those lines that I ain't
mentioned...
This is not to say that quantity is immaterial, of course...but,
without quality, what's the point in quantity? What would you prefer
to have? Ten cheap digital watches that are all broken beyond repair
or one brand new never-breathed-upon golden rollex watch upon your
arm? Of course, ten brand new golden watches would be even better
still but the point here is that it's _quality_ first then quantity
becomes an issue...
So we cannot answer your question about the five and fifty lines
without knowing the exact quality of each...it may or it may not be a
Good Thing...you simply cannot tell from the numbers alone...
> Which are compiled to the same machine code in the end?
Ah, well, in the case of that particular identical quality, of course
not...but you've actually rigged the question to get the answer you
want, haven't you? You said "replace" those C lines with equivalent
ASM lines, which, by definition, are going to end up as exactly
equivalent lines of machine code...well, that's just silly...you're
just doing the compiler's job for it but much, much slower...of course
no-one would choose that...but that's not the choice anyone with sense
would actually be making...the whole point of using ASM would be to
break out of the brainless compiler's "follow a pattern, for good or
for ill" mechansisms...to exploit the Liberty in ASM to provide a
solution otherwise often unobtainable...
Note that by this rigged question - as we're pre-defining that the
machine code ends up exactly the same - then the ASM won't be any
smaller nor will it be any faster...the end result, by definition, is
identical...well, that's cheating, really, isn't it? It's like saying:
"Is it better to go by car or to walk? Oh, by the way, I'm defining
that, in the end, there's absolutely no advantage to using a car,
you'll reach your destination at the same time as the walker and the
comfort and convenience I'm also defining will be exactly
identical...so, if we presume that going by car and walking are
absolutely identical, is it better to go by car or walk?"...well, of
course, with a question phrased like that, the answer has already been
defined for us...it makes no difference because the question _tells
us_ that it makes no difference...what sort of a question is that??
> Structures and calls to functions cannot be "optimized"
> - they look the same - if compiled from a C compiler or
> an assembler...
No they don't and yes they do...depends what you're talking about
exactly...under Linux, one of the operating systems mentioned above,
then we can make system calls directly via the int 80h interface which
is completely different and more "optimised" than going via C language
wrapper functions...
As for calls to functions...when you use C, do you go to great lengths
to try to squeeze function calls inside function calls and avoid
temporary variables? Something like "Result = Func1(Func2((NextChar =
getc())!=NULL), Func3(&NextChar));" or similar? No? Then your compiler
won't produce the same output as the typical ASM version...from C code
written in a typical "readable" style of not trying to cram everything
all into a single line, here's some startup code that the C compiler
generated...
----------- 8< -----------
@_start$qv proc near
push ebp
mov ebp,esp
add esp,-68
push ebx
push esi
push 0
call GetModuleHandleA
mov ebx,eax
call GetCommandLineA
mov esi,eax
lea eax,dword ptr [ebp-68]
push eax
call GetStartupInfoA
movzx eax,word ptr [ebp-20]
push eax
push esi
push 0
push ebx
call WinMain
push eax
call ExitProcess
pop esi
pop ebx
mov esp,ebp
pop ebp
ret
@_start$qv endp
----------- >8 -----------
What's it doing? Well, because we're not squeezing it all up onto one
line but are using named local variables to store everything then the
compiler is storing things in registers on the off-chance that the
next line it compiles might want to alter it...which it never actually
does do...then there's a stack frame here too...not exactly sure why
it thinks we need one but then it seems to create every time
regardless of whether it's needed or a good idea or whatever...ebp
gets used up for that...and, ummm, it sets up the stack frame but
because it hasn't got a clue that this is startup code, it's cleaning
up that stack frame _after_ a call to "ExitProcess"...and, well,
that's too late and quite pointless...the program will be terminated
by "call ExitProcess" but the compiler has no idea about this and
carries on generating code to clean up a stack frame which, in
practice, will never be cleaned up by the program because it happens
at the end of the function - that's how the C compiler always
generates it - but it never reaches the end of the function because
Windows has to terminate the program on a call to "ExitProcess"...so
it's not just that I'm not sure why it's setting up the stack frame
like it does but it's an entirely pointless procedure...but - and this
is the point - the compiler doesn't know these things and so it just
blindly generates code follow blind and unintelligent rules...
Generally, people grossly overestimate the intelligence of their C
compilers...they are talked about as if they walked on water but, in
practice, it's better described as a big round fat man belly flopping
into the water and depending on all his fat keeping him afloat rather
than any swimming skills...that is closer to what's really going on
with most compilers...
----------- >8 -----------
_start proc
push esp
sub esp, sizeof STARTUPINFOA
call GetStartupInfoA
movzx eax, [ esp + 20 ]
pop esp
push eax
call GetCommandLineA
push eax
push NULL
push NULL
call GetModuleHandleA
push eax
call WinMain
push eax
call ExitProcess
_start endp
----------- 8< -----------
Much cleaner, clearer, simpler, smaller and more efficient with none
of the confusing nonsense about stack frames which never get cleaned
up because the compiler has no idea what's really going on...and,
also, I've not used up any registers unnecessarily so if this was a
function to be expanded, we've still got most of our registers
spare...and also means that this version doesn't overwrite any
register but eax so if this was part of a series of calls then, if
needed, eax could be preserved at the top of the series of calls and
restored at the bottom...a single PUSH and POP (and even that's only
needed if eax happened to have something useful in it before the
series of calls)...leave it to the compiler, though, and it'll push
all the registers, pop all the registers, push all the registers, pop
all the registers for all the called functions...
Really, when compiler authors make these bold "miracle" claims, people
have got to start to learn to take it all with a pinch of salt...they
want you to believe it produces miraculous output because then you'll
and over your money...and bosses also tend to have an interest in
backing up "the compiler is perfect" myth because that means you spend
slightly less time coding which means you get more done in less
time...in other words, there's some wages he or she can avoid paying
you...and then there's all the programmers who, in truth, aren't
really all that good at programming...but, hey, if they also keep the
"perfect compiler" myth going then the differences in skill level
between programmers is negated because the compiler does most of the
work...leveling out their skill with everyone else so they don't look
so bad when they produce a 3MB application that just edits some
text...well, they don't look so bad _until_ they are put up against
ASM-coded highly-optimised 64KB demos which manage ray-tracing,
sampled sound, fonts and anti-aliased font rendering, storing volumes
of text, creating textures in 1/48th the space it took them to write
Notepad, for Pete's sake...
Enough said, I think...well, except to point out that the sequences at
the end during and after the scroll text are chosen randomly or
something so it's actually slightly different every time you run the
demo :)
> Might be worth to think about?
Indeed...it might be worth _thinking_ about these things rather than
passing on a Chinese whisper you heard that "ASM is dead" and we
should all go out and spend $$$$ on compilers which are able to walk
on water...because, indeed, if this were not true then wouldn't that
actually mean it's a bit of a con job just to get their hands on our
money with cheap and hollow hype? Surely not...I mean, that wouldn't
be a "nice" thing to do now, would it? ;)
> Application programming has to follow several lines. 1st,
> it should be easy to code. Makes a point for HLL, because
> it is coded faster.
Wait, sorry, no it doesn't...not directly from what you've said,
anyway...the rate at which you can code and how easy it is to do that
aren't one and the same thing by any means...I could have a tool where
it's hard going - very difficult to code - for a few hours but you get
the whole thing wrapped up sooner than when it's very easy to code but
you've got to do a lot more work...
It might sound odd but once you know ASM, it's somewhat amusing to
hear it being described as "complicated"...what is complicated about
moving 32-bits from one register to another? Or adding two registers
together? This literally is sitting on the most minimal fundamental
principles of logic...it really can't get much simpler than binary
with ANDs and ORs...not just programming here but we're talking
reality itself...
What seems complicated until you get the hang of how to do it is the
"carried context" of registers and flags...that is a completely
different way of doing things to HLLs and, sure, you need to get used
to doing it...but ASM isn't "difficult" because of it...after all, is
English made more "complex" because it has pronouns like "it" or "he"
or "she"? Because those are also "carried context"...what "it" refers
to depends on the last thing I just said...but once you're used to
pronouns and how the whole "it" thing works, it's hardly overly
complex...in fact, if the rules instead insisted that the person now
currently reading the post which the person now writing is writing
(e.g. "you" ;) always spell out in exact detail what everything is,
then that would seem the complicated thing when the person now
currently reading the post which the person now writing is writing
(e.g. "you" :) are used to using pronouns instead...think I'm verbose?
No, it would be nothing in comparison to writing posts where pronouns
and other shorthand "carried context" ("what", "that", "this", etc. ;)
are banned words...it could end up taking ten pages just to say two or
three sentences...hehehe :)
> 2nd, it should run fast. This point's
> going to assembler, but modern HLL compilers are not that
> far away from assembler!
Really? I've never actually seen this backed up by statistics ever,
you know...it's a sort of "shared wisdom" that seems to actually have
no origin in any facts and figures to support it...everyone says it,
no-one seems to know where this "knowledge" is coming from or based
upon...very suspicious-sounding to me like it's a Chinese whisper
started by a compiler hype campaign, targetted at convincing
programmers to spend cash rather than use free tools...note, for
instance, that assemblers don't really need to be "upgraded" every two
weeks, only when the CPU family spawns a new sibling...in these terms,
of course "ASM is dead" because if it wasn't, why should serious
programmers actually waste any time or money or effort on the
continual "upgrade overdrive" and keep the compiler writers in jobs?
It's far too easily done...create some big hype that "C++ will bring
about world peace and save the universe" and just slot in one of those
tables where you list C++ versus ASM times and sizes and it looks
favourable to C++ but, of course, that's because the people making the
adverts aren't dumb enough to actually make it a fair test...the code
was rigged up so that there was hardly any difference between the
two...you only really need to convince a few people to start off the
Chinese whisper: "modern compilers are as good as ASM, if not
better!!" and they'll be so excited by this news that they'll do all
the dirty work of spreading the rumours far and wide...
Now, personally, I could see that for an average programmer, not
taking any great care with their code and in a rush to get it all done
that, yeah, a compiler does do pretty well...but I just can't imagine
someone coding simple cheap-and-nasty-but-fast C and leaving it all to
the compiler getting the sorts of results that ASM coders happily
demonstrate to us in those 64KB, like the two above that I've posted a
link to because I discovered them the other day...no, in fact, what is
clear is quite the reverse...I compile an empty, blank program and the
C compiler spits out a 40KB file to do nothing(!)...and then I see
what the latest C-based Microsoft thing is and, oh look, it needs 64MB
of RAM just to edit some plain text files or whatever...as fast as
ASM? Oh, come on...I'm sitting here for at least five whole seconds -
sometimes going up to ten - waiting for Outlook to load up and sort
its head out with initialising...we're talking over 7 billion cycles,
measurable in human seconds, for Pete's sake...what on Earth is it
doing that's so flipping complex and time-consuming? Word's not much
better...in fact, that's one of the signs you're using Microsoft
software - excluding the insistance of sticking "Microsoft" in front
of every name, as if you were in any doubt about who made it - is that
it'll suddenly hang with a white unpainted window for a few seconds
for apparently no good reason...
No, if this is a demonstration of C++ and others being "just as good
as ASM" then my AMD CPU must have suddenly turned into a Z80 chip
overnight when I wasn't looking...because the machine is capable of
far, far better things than this and ASM is capable of whatever the
machine is capable of...so, by extension, if they are suggesting these
bloatware monsters are coded "just as good as ASM", it means the CPU
somehow metamorphises into a tortoise whenever, coincidentally, a
non-ASM non-optimsied coded piece of software runs on it...
> 3rd (today not _that_ important,
> because users are used to get _bloated_ code), the size -
> no doubt, who's winning this one. But the result of "2:1"
> for assembler doesn't mean, that it is used in our modern
> application programming. Sad - but true!
Indeed...but the result can be interpreted remembering something
you've just noted yourself...data structures will be of identical
sizes in all languages...that is, a byte is a byte is a byte...so the
reduction that ASM can provide is a lot more impressive when you
realise that the "2:1" size reduction you mention (although, the demo
pointed to actually has a *ahem* "30,000:1" size reduction so we
shouldn't be underestimating that "2:1" is the best achieveable or
typical or anything ;) doesn't include data at all...data will be of a
similar size in all languages...
Also, how did these demo coders achieve such a ratio as high as
effectively "30,000:1"? Well, by run-time generation of data...a
preference towards code that puts together the data at run-time rather
than storing the data "flat" and "raw", as bitmaps, waveform files and
that sort of thing...in other words, the "2:1" doesn't include data so
if we can get our data from the code instead then the use of ASM in
reducing the code size is more pronounced and dramatic...
> In modern times,
> people don't have the time (it _costs_ money) to put much
> effort into assembler.
Well, let's be precise...there is not the market - as ASM is not
currently a popular language for other psychological, academic and
business reasons - for there to be any great returns on any investment
(in fact, probably only losses) of time and money put into the
assembly market...
It's a subtle difference but important, I think...people would have
the time - or would _make_ the time - to put effort in...and spending
money is not a problem, _if_ that money and more besides is returned
to you from the investment...
After all, it costs a lot of time, money and effort to cater for the
C++ market and to put together all their "jigsaw puzzle"
point-and-click interface builders too...this is the attitudinal thing
that I'm often surprised to hear uttered...spending time, spending
money and making an effort is not in and of itself an "evil" to be
avoided...every business is spending time, money and putting in effort
to achieve what it is doing...this is not any sort of "problem"...the
_true problem_ is actually a simple arithmetical one...if you're
spending more - "outgoing" - than you're getting back in return -
"incoming" - then you're working at a loss...and it's working at a
loss that's the thing to be avoided...if, though, this simple
arithmetical equation can be balanced or biased towards profit then we
would see plenty of people willing to spend time, money and effort in
ASM...
This is why the efforts expended in ASM presently have a clear pattern
to them...HLA, NASM, SpAsm, FASM, etc. are free software
projects...free software projects work because they are done as
"hobbies" and, with hobbies, it's an implicit thing that you simply
shoulder the burden of any time, money or effort it entails because,
yes, you actually enjoy doing your hobby...the costs are also somewhat
"absorbed" into the fact that such hobbists would be on their
computers doing their hobbies, anyway, whether or not they were
working on a free software project...if Randy wasn't doing HLA then
he'd be doing something else...if rene wasn't working on SpAsm then
he'd be working on something else...perhaps only a private personal
project for themselves rather than a public free software
project...but the cost would be paid, anyway...because the cost is the
cost of keeping their computer supplied with power, their internet
bills and the basics of keeping themselves fed, warm and happy...if
not working on a free software project then they'd likely still be
working on their computer and the cost of keeping yourself alive
simply never disappears for any of us...
It's the way free software works and succeeds; It's like that SETI
screen saver, in fact...you know the one, I'm sure...you download the
SETI screensaver and when your computer's not being used for anything
else - the screen saver has kicked in - it devotes its time and CPU
power to the gargantuan task of looking for signs of intelligent life
sending signals to us...it uses up otherwise wasted time and devotes
it to a specific task - searching for the little green men's stray TV
signals ;) - and so the cost of doing this fantastic amount of work is
"absorbed" because, well, the computer would be on, anyway (getting
technical about this, there is a fractionally increased cost because
if no screen saver kicked in then the OS would likely issue a HLT
instruction and the CPU would go into a low power mode just waiting
for external interrupts...it should be consuming fractionally less
power if allowed to truely go "inactive" with a HLT instruction...but,
well, no-one gets this pedantic about things and they prefer to have
their screen savers printing pretty pictures on their monitor instead
;)...
I have to jump on this statement and try to be more precise about it
because it's carrying another Chinese whisper in it...an attitude
that's going around, a myth that's passing from person to person and
getting a foothold in their perceptions, regardless of whether it's
strictly 100% correct or not...the implicit attitude I'm talking about
is that "spending time, money and effort in ASM" is automatically not
going to be worth it and never going to be worth it...in specific
instances, sure, this might indeed be the case...but it's got to be
judged on a case-by-case basis, really, and can't just be said as a
broadbrush statement...
When Carmack and Abrash put DOOM together, they used a C and ASM
mix...the ASM was necessary in order to get the "texture mapping"
(it's ray-casting and sprite scaling, actually...but, visually, you
can't really tell the difference, except that you can't look up or
down or tilt the view because it was really a 2D game with a lot of
very, very clever "cheats" which created a very convincing illusion of
it being a 3D game :)...that aspect of the graphics programming was
utterly time-critical...even in ASM, full of loop unrolling, optimised
tricks, sacrifices of precision to get more speed, etc....with the
machines of the time, it simply would not have been possible to do it
with anything but ASM...ASM made the DOOM project _feasible_...without
it and Abrash's attitude to push things to the wire...well, we can
exactly see what because there were other game manufacturers out there
"doing their thing" and who did not share Abrash's obsession with
speed and squeezing out every last bit of power from the system...
They were all still stuck in the 2D platform games of
yesteryear...even games with vector graphics - wireframe or flat
filled - were the odd exception in a flood of 2D platform
games...no-one was interested in taking things forward, breaking the
mold or putting in the effort...they were, unlike iD software, running
_away_ from ASM towards HLLs...yes, DOOM was C code in the main
running all but the graphics...but it's a false appraisal to suggest
that this shows you should use C for games coding...understanding what
DOOM is, how it works and what the attitudes of Carmack and Abrash
were, it would be more accurate to say that they were coding in C
because that was "normal"...but had the courage and attitude to push
things further by going to ASM to, yes, bring about a revolution in
software technology that, basically, cannot be underestimated as it
changed the face of computing from then on...every other game
thereafter has wanted to be DOOM or, later, Quake I/II/III and you can
bet everyone will be trying to "go bump-mapping" once DOOM III blows
its competition out of the water...because, again, though Abrash has
left them, Carmack's still keeping that courage to stick his neck out
and always do something new, always push the technologies forward and
be willing to, yes, put in the time, money and effort required to do
so...interestingly, iD still carry the attitudes of hobby programmers
and still follow the shareware model with small downloadable "demos"
of a few levels, despite where they now are...
Now, it _did_ make perfect sense to put in that time, money and effort
into coding those ASM texture mapping routines...surely, it was
time-consuming and a pain in the butt for Abrash to put them
together...that sort of coding often tends to be nightmarish in
comparison to "we don't care for quality" C coding using MFC libraries
and such...
But - and this is the acme of the matter - was it worth the effort?
Well, they brought about a revolution in computing that's still
echoing on and on even today...it's not even conceivable for a
computer game not to be full of 3D texture map polygons flying about
the screen...even the isometric views of all those "god" games are
actually being rendered by polygons now and you can press a key to
make the maps spin around and around...and these sorts of games are
often rendering little "men" only a few pixels high but they are still
fully modelled and rendered as a mesh of polygons...well, why not?
Because as part of the revolution they spawned with DOOM, modern
machines come equipped with dedicated 3D graphics cards...it's just
not acceptable - people's expectations were raised by what DOOM
started - not to use flashy polygon graphics...if things had stuck
with 2D platform games and the odd "space game" with filled flat
vectors and rather than the instant "knock your socks off" revolution,
it had been allowed to slowly evolve over time...well, can we be sure
that video cards would have been "upgraded" with these capabilities?
They are very much tailored to texture mapped polygons...the
accelerations actually become quite useless for other methods of 3D
generation like voxels and ray-tracing...they don't provide any help
at all...because, when push comes to shove, these are "Quake-clone
accelerator cards"...they are catering specifically to the games
market and adding the capabilities in hardware because, well, there's
still a majority of lazy programmers out there...so by including the
difficult time-critical routines inside hardware, anyone can put
together a Quake clone using a HLL and doesn't have to make the
investment of time, money and effort that Carmack and Abrash did...
It's basically an avoidance issue...it's not that it isn't worth
making this investment...it's not that such investment, in the right
places, won't give a return...I mean, Carmack is absolutely loaded
and, for Pete's sake, is building his own spaceship(!) - genuinely
trying for spaceflight - in his spare time because he has money to
burn...and when iD release their games, it's not just the massive
sales they make on them (DOOM shareware has been estimated to have
been installed on over 15 million PCs!! That's NOT small numbers and
even if only 1% register... ;)...it's the fact that Valve's Half-life
is a modified Quake engine...because, yes, they can make their money
_twice_ because they took the time to invest time, money and effort
where everyone else didn't...they simply sell their engines for a few
tens of thousands after they've used it up themselves on their own
games...at this point, iD are always one step ahead _because_ everyone
else is too sacred to make the effort and take the time, always
cautiously "following the leader" and not making any bold strides
themselves...so they are working on the next engine which beats the
crap out of the last one, while they sell what is to them "old news"
for large sums to other companies who - dare I say stupidly? - thought
it was clever to be cautious, not take risks, not make investments of
time, money and effort...and, the big one, actually believed the hype
that ASM should be avoided...iD never fell for that hype and it's a
prime reason why they are still there at the top and why Carmack is so
loaded he can waste his time and money building spaceships "for fun"!!
Stop listening to the Chinese whispers people pass around and start
looking at the actual cause and effect of what you can see actually
happening...actions speak louder than words and, also, they are a lot,
lot more trustworthy...you can clearly see a _marked_ and _large_
difference in the quality of those who believe in ASM and those who
believe it should be killed off...
In fact, there is but _one_ company who subscribes to the HLL
mentality and gets away with it...Microsoft...but, as we all know,
they don't "get away with it" when it comes to people's attitudes
towards them and their bloated monsters that take forever to do
practically nothing...and they are successful because of effective
monopoly - we have no real practical choices in the matter - and NOT
because of their programming model...their programming model, in fact,
is where they are _weak_...where they are _vurnerable_...where free
software is able to walk in and scare the big boys...where demo coders
can produce miracles which make you realise just how crap M$'s model
is and just how much waste is truely going on...
It's NOT a role model strategy but money-chasers everywhere see Big
Bill and Balmer do it this way and think they'll become just as rich
copying them...well, name one MS wannabe that's succeeded treating
MS's practices as a role model...you'll have to think long and hard
about that one...because it doesn't actually work...and if it were to
succeed, MS's model is inherently self-destructive...because M$
themselves will immediately label you "a threat", buy you out in a
hostile take-over and effectively shut you down...M$'s model, amongst
other things, can _ONLY_ succeed in a state of monopoly and don't they
bloody know it...that's why they are so insanely paranoid about
competition and insist on sticking their name on anything in big, bold
letters with really over-the-top legal protections...you think MS feel
safe where they are? Nosiree, they are King of the castle...that makes
them the targets of _everyone_ else...
MS are where they are today because Bill is an excellent poker player
and made two immensely risky "poker bluffs" with IBM and Apple...in
hindsight, it was stupid of IBM and Apple to have fallen for the
bluff...no software company could actually develop all their software
and continually retract it at the last minute unless they bow to what
is effectively blackmail...both times Bill made the absurd "give us
this and this and this or we'll just not release our software for your
machine" bluff...amazingly, it worked both times...the IBM time, it
gave him operating system monopoly, starting with DOS...the Apple
time, it gave him legal rights to create Windows...he put the two
together and the rest is history...had IBM or Apple simply called his
bluff - "really? Go on, then...see how long you can stay in business
as a software company when you keep pulling out of your deals and
retracting your software at the last minute" - then Bill and Balmer
would still be writing their bloatware applications from Bill's
garage...he'd probably have gone back to coding BASIC interpreters or
something...
It's these poker bluffs that made MS...not their "rush things out,
time is money, who cares about bugs, save anything we can on wages,
reverse the economics of mass-production" attitudes...that's their
Achillies heel, if anything...the thing that's making governments
around the world switch to Linux...the thing that drives every
M$-basher there is...the thing that, were a feasible and useful
popular alternative to truely make an impact, would ensure that M$ go
the way of the dinosaurs (well, not really...Bill's too clever a
businessman...he's already sowed the seeds of "diversification", as
his OS monopoly doesn't look so inevitable any more, so that he can
simply jump out and parachute his way into games consoles, TV media
and that sort of thing instead :)...
Stop listening to the rhetoric of the "politicians" and start
_looking_ at the actions and the consequences...
Yes, ASM needs to be reformed, improved, made more time and cost
effective, its reputation restored...and, well, we can use rene's
shorthand of calling this "assembly rebirth" but the writing is
already on the wall about this...honestly...the problem is that people
aren't reading that writing themselves but are trusting those with
agendas in promoting HLLs to read it on their behlaf...please, people,
look at it for yourselves and judge it by your own
judgement...compiler writers clearly have an agenda...but lazy coders
also have an agenda in promoting this so that they can remain
lazy...and Microsoft has an agenda in promoting it too because, it's
one of the oldest tricks in the book, they can hire _unskilled_
workers...
It's actually the McDonald's way...the basic idea that McDonald's had
was to apply the concepts of production line to cooking...you have one
person cooking the fries, one person doing the burgers, one person
putting the burger into the buns, one person dealing with the
orders...the production line mentality...this strategy is NOT only
about cooking the food faster for the customer's "convenience"...what
it's really about is the ability to hire young unskilled teenagers at
the minimum wage rather than a proper chef and skilled kitchen hands,
like other "restaurants" do (sorry, I've always had trouble with the
concept of calling McDonald's a "restaurant" :)...because when you
have a simple one person, one job production line, you can spend five
minutes teaching this unskilled person how to flip burgers...it's just
one job they've got to do so it doesn't require a long and expensive
training course...oh yes, indeed, you can hire _anyone_ to do these
jobs...and, of course, when it's a job with no needed qualifications
like this, there's a rush for it...and you can then say "actually,
we're going to pay you as little as the law permits - the minimum
wage - and that's it...we'd, in fact, pay you even less than that, if
only the law allowed us to do so"...
This is the concept of delibrately "de-skilling" the production
because then you can hire a bunch of young, naive kids - or
immigrants, who despite the xenophobic stereotypes, are actually
desparate and happy to take any work, even something as shite as
this - with no union, at the minimum wage and if they piss you off in
any way then you can fire them, no problem...there's plenty more kids
on the poverty line who'll be happy to be paid next to nothing...
So, be very careful in promoting these sorts of attitudes, it's all an
attempt to "de-skill" computer programming so that "experts" are not
necessary...they can then import in a bunch of young students - happy
that they've got themselves _any_ type of work - to do our work at a
tenth of the price...this is really what's going on...computer
programming and support was notoriously well-paid stuff...anyone with
even basic skills declared to be a "whizz-kid"...a "guru" who you pay
an absolute fortune just to "consult" for you...notice, that's already
starting to slip and it'll only go further...the eventual aim - though
probably not achieveable because computers themselves are inherently a
bit more complex than flipping burgers - is to McDonalds-ise the
industry so that we're all ten a penny and can be treated like crap...
Oh dear...someone's actually blown the lid on it all...told it like it
is...it's not a very happy story, is it? These Chinese whispers that
we should all program in XML because it's "better" has now been put
into perspective, hasn't it? And, alongside this, they are also
"programming" users to believe that 1GB of RAM is "nothing" and that
it's not possible to do it in a tenth of the space...they are training
them to get used to bugs...to get used to crashes...to accept the
reduced quality that this strategy of de-skilled high-level
programming will produce...making the users believe that it's
"natural" to spend $1000s on all the latest gadgets, which, in truth,
is a way to transfer development costs onto the customers and unload
that burden and obligation that really is their responsibility...
That's what this is really all about...think it over and check up the
history and the facts and figures yourself...the pattern is actually
clearly there...what's hidden it all this time is the army of Chinese
whispers telling us all that it's a Good Thing that these trends are
happening...but it isn't...they are depending on the fact that, yes,
all of us would Love it if we could do our work with half the effort
because that would mean our work is not so difficult and we could
clock off work sooner to spend more time actually enjoying life
outside work...of course this is something that, if it were possible,
everyone would jump at the chance...it's the dream behind those
Lottery tickets, isn't it? You win millions so that you can quit your
job completely and just live the high life and never need to work
again...work is something we _must_ do to earn enough to stay alive
and comfortable...but, well, if you could do all that without the work
then everyone is sure that's what they'd want to be doing (though,
actual Lottery winners have tried it, decided it's all just too boring
and that sitting around a swimming pool drinking champagne all day
actually means you don't meet anyone so it's very lonely...and, yup,
despite not needing the money, some Lottery winners who were once
convinced that winning would be a dream because they wouldn't have to
work, actually go back to their jobs so that they have something to do
and can carry on meeting their friends every day)...
But they are using this attitude to sneak in what the big business
bosses actually want...they want programming to become
unskilled...then they can charge less wages and they'll always be a
pool of willing employees...employees who know they are easily fired
so do their work well without complaints...employees who don't dare
talk about forming a union or their "rights" as workers because they'd
"magically" be a mass firing the next day and a bunch of new workers -
who don't talk in such "radical" ways - can replace them all...this is
the dream that the big bosses dream at night...a world where they pay
nothing but can charge the Earth...
Still don't believe it's all just one big con? Well, what's the theory
behind mass production? The basic idea is that developing /
manufacturing in bulk can save costs and bring the eventual price
down, undercutting the competition, etc., etc....so, can someone
explain how it is that M$'s product _defy_ the economics of mass
production? How is it that Word, Excel, Windows and such actually cost
_more_ - despite being massively mass-produced and undoubtedly the
most "popular" and most sold software on Earth - than lots of custom
software solutions? In total defiance of the whole point of
mass-production and its economics, M$ software _goes up_ in price the
more they produce and sell, not down (???)...anyone else smelling a
rat here?
Perhaps you can now understand why I do get a little worked up on this
issue...it's not a "conspiracy" in the unnamed men sitting, smoking,
around a large table in an underground complex plotting world
domination (unless James Bond can save the day! :)...that's,
obviously, just the way it goes down in movies to make it entertaining
and exciting to watch...nothing quite like that actually goes
on...it's not "planned" in that sense...what it is, is about
"trends"...for instance, workers tend to want lots of money and a
reasonably easy job to do and job security and that sort of
thing...there is no "conspiracy" and there's no big meeting where
every worker in the entire world sits around discussing how they
should all agree on wanting lots of money and job security (well, not
quite...there are unions which are close but it's not anything you'd
see in a James Bond movie ;)...everyone, though, tends to want these
things because, well, it just "makes sense"...similarly, the employers
want a cheap and plentiful workforce, customers with more money than
sense throwing it at them, ways to avoid paying taxes and that sort of
thing...this is not any sort of "conspiracy" in the James Bond /
X-files sense either...it's just the very same "it makes sense" that
the workers have but from the other side of the fence...when one
company does something to dupe customers into buying an expensive
video card to save them spending any time, money and effort on
software development, the others notice this and, yup, jump on the
bandwagon...
If there's a bank machine that's just constantly spitting out $100
notes then you can expect a large crowd of people to form around it,
all fighting to grab as many notes as they can from the machine before
someone notices that the machine is broken - handing out free money -
and comes to fix it...note that, just like the people crowding around
the bank machine, these business people are in a similar state of
panic and paranoia at everyone else...that's why we hear them
constantly tell us about how it's a "dog eat dog" world and it's
acceptable for them to just trample all over anyone else in the crowd
to stop them taking the notes being spat out of the machine, as they
want them all to themselves...well, you never know the future...the
machine might just stop spitting out notes / customers may decide your
product is "out of fashion" and go with a rival instead...they take
what they can right here and right now - much like employees try their
best to do the same, if they can manage it without angering their
bosses enough to get them fired - because none of us ever knows what's
waiting around the corner...though, as my usual environmental rants go
on about, there's an ironic catastrophe in the making there...because
everyone's out for what they can get, come what may, it's actually
_creating_ that bleak future that we're all so desparately clutching
at straws to provide...
How on Earth you can convince people otherwise - if it's at all
possible - to actually "remain calm and form an orderly queue around
the bank machine...we'll all split the money fairly so we don't go
around beating the crap out of each other to get at it", I don't
know...similarly, how to convince people that investment in
alternatives now can actually make the inevitable "doom and gloom" of
all the energy in the world running out disappear, and that things can
actually be kept more or less as it is without any catastrophes
blowing up in our faces, is a really hard case to make...not because
the facts aren't there...they are clear and plain as day...not because
people don't understand the points or share the feeling that something
really should be done about it...even those who think I'm mad and
dismiss my "nutty rantings" still say "yes, there certainly is a
problem that needs to be addressed"...the problem is that I'm fighting
fear and paranoia...I'm suggesting "form an orderly queue" but
everyone's too suspicious that everyone else will ignore me and rush
for the money, leaving them high and dry because they are right at the
back because they joined my "orderly queue"...it doesn't matter that
"form an orderly queue" is the logical thing to do, if one person
breaks ranks and rushes for the money, anarchy would just break
out...that's the whole big problem here...it's like two sides in a war
saying they want peace but refusing to put their guns down until the
other does it first...it's called a "Mexican stand-off", isn't it?
They have it in the movies all the time...well, this is roughly the
permanent position that the entire human race is in...if it's not the
Cold War then it's terrorism...in fact, when it appears to have
naturally disappeared, it's almost as if humankind delibrately starts
a fight to restore the tension and fear and paranoia...as if we can't
live without it...very, very strange stuff...
> They prefer C++ or Visual Basic or
> other crap, because it saves a lot of time, and you don't
> need to know everything about the machine.
Presuming we have someone skilled and experienced in ASM and someone
skilled and experienced in C++...and we task them the exact same
application to write...what actual difference in time frames can we
generally expect? I suppose, of course, it depends on what exactly the
application is...and, also, I'd say that the relative _quality_ of the
end result of both has to be measured too (so perhaps the C++ finishes
first but the ASM version has much performance and functionality, for
example :)...it really would be interesting to have some unbiased
results (compiler writers often do comparison like this but they often
tend to be biased into making the compiler look good for blatantly
obvious reasons, as they tests done purely to promote the compiler in
advertising ;)...because, really, these are more "suspicions" than
"facts"...they get said and we all have a "feeling" that, yeah, the
C++ would be easier and quicker...but it can't really be stated in the
"factual" way it often gets stated without actual independent results
compiled to demonstrate it is that way, as well as, of course,
demonstrating just how much of a difference it actually makes...
Because, for pure example to make the point, let's suppose that the
C++ version is done in a week and the ASM in a week and a half...but
the ASM version is "2:1" smaller in size, runs faster and is generally
of better quality...is half a week really that important? I mean, we
should really judge this by a "pros and cons" / "cost-benefit"
analysis to make our judgements correctly...
I mean, it would be stupid to suggest that we just kill off patients
in a hospital because it "saves time, money and effort"...I mean, hey,
we're all going to be dead one day so why not save ourselves time and
take the "shortcut" there? That would be pure nonsense...time to
remember that the objective here _isn't_ just to "save time, money and
effort" regardless...that's a silly way to live your
life...correction: to NOT live your life...we want to minimise wasting
our time, money and effort, sure...but "spending" does not mean
"waste" automatically...you really do have to "speculate to
accumulate", as business people would say...or, if you prefer the
Bible's version, then "you reap what you sow"...Budhist's can remind
us of "karma"...scientists can tell us that "for every action there is
an equal and opposite reaction"...sorry, I'm not going to allow them
to "divide and conquer" us, when there's really a universal agreement
on this basic principle from all sides...intuitively, we know all this
greed and bullcrap can't go on indefinitely because it's not
self-sustaining...well, here's one place where you really can "save
time, money and effort" by jumping off the bandwagon and not
perpetuating other people's agendas any longer...it's time for _real_
"Liberation" of every man, woman and child on this fair planet...all
of us, we're not leaving a single person behind on this...not even the
greedy ones who created the problem in the first place...they will be
instantly forgiven and we'll move on...as it's always been
circumstances and things like fear of losing what they have that made
them do it, anyway...because as effective as "divide and conquer" is,
we can also "unite and conquer" far more effectively and it has a far,
far better chance of actually being permanent because there would be
no more enemies trying to spoil the peace...
> You just click the things together, as you need them.
Jigsaw piece programming...of course, if you try this "jigsaw piece
programming" then you'll soon realise that it's great for putting
together a few types of application but fails miserably at other
things...multipad file Notepad? Yeah, great...you can put it together
in a matter of hours...a MIDI sequencer? Ummm, well, perhaps...the
interface should be okay...video editing software? Ummm...a
general-purpose media player? Ummm...a 2D computer game? Okay, perhaps
not...DOOM III? Ummm, not a chance in a million...
If you've done jigsaws then you'll already know the problem...the
picture is pre-printed on the jigsaw pieces...now, you might be able
to put the pieces down in a non-standard order to create some sort of
a different picture but there's limitations...you can't fully escape
the pre-printed picture on the jigsaw pieces...what we get is a
million programs that are all basically the same, except for the
buttons being moved around a bit...the application is pre-printed onto
the "components" - just like the jigsaw - so when you put them
together, it's hardly surprisingly that the final picture looks
incredibly familiar...
> That's the new way to write software.
Yes; And 50 is the new 30...green is the new pink...pain is the new
pleasure...there's millions of miles of newspaper and magazine columns
devoted to giving people with nothing to do the feeling that they are
actually useful to society when they aren't...fish are the new
cows...old is the new new...whatever...
C++ and OOP was the new way to write software...so was Java and the
internet...you're actually behind the times here, really...visual
programming is now "out of date" and "obselete" as the latest fashion
to promise us all world peace...oh no, it's C#, XML and "services"
that are the new way to write software...and, tomorrow, it'll be
something else...because the broken record just keeps spinning around
and around and around but will never reach any sort of "end"...
"Post office clerks put up signs saying 'position closed'
And secretaries turn off typewriters and put on their coats
Janitors padlock the gates
For security guards to patrol
And bachelors phone up their friends for a drink
While the married ones turn on a chat show
Gentlemen, time please, you know we can't serve anymore
Now the traffic lights change to stop, when there's nothing to go
And by five o'clock everything's dead
And every third car is a cab
And ignorant people sleep in their beds
Like the doped white mice in the college lab
Telephone exchanges click while there's nobody there
The Martians could land in the carpark and no one would care
Close-circuit cameras in department stores shoot the same video every
day
And the stars of these films neither die nor get killed
Just survive constant action replay
Bill hoardings advertise products that _nobody needs_
While 'angry from Manchester' writes to complain about
All the repeats on TV
And computer terminals report some gains
On the values of copper and tin
While American businessmen snap up Van Goghs
For the price of a hospital wing
Nothing ever happens...
Nothing happens at all...
The needle returns to the start of the song
And we all sing along like before...
Nothing ever happens...
Nothing happens at all...
They'll _burn down the synagogues_ at six o'clock
And we'll all go along like before...
And we'll _ALL_ be lonely tonight
And lonely tomorrow..."
[ "Nothing ever happens", Del Amitri ]
> Does not need to mention, that this is
> the wrong way - but neither you nor me (nor anybody else)
> will change it. If it comes down to big business, there's
> no room for "proper work" - and since the "professionals"
> are working this way, most "spare time programmers" (like
> me) will follow them sooner or later...
Why can't we change things? What makes it impossible to oppose? Are
you completely sure that the "wisdom" that none of us can do anything
isn't just one more Chinese whisper...one more perpetual myth?
If we don't play their game then they cannot win...if we don't buy
crap products then they can't keep making them...if we don't tolerate
their contempt then they can't do it to our children after us...
They spread another "wisdom"...the saying is "if you can't beat them,
join them"...well, total bullcrap, I say...no, if you can't beat them
then we change the rules of the game to something we _all_ can
win...how on Earth do you think they _always_ manage to win and stay
on top in these games? Yes, _they_ are following my saying rather than
the defeatist one...they always win because they rig the rules of the
game so that they win by default...the rules of the game are our laws
and how we do things...go and have a look...see who puts the laws
together and see who "coincidentally" benefits the most from them
all...they "win" because they define the game itself to declare them
the winners automatically and to declare all the rest of us as
"losers" automatically too...
> Before you ask - yes, but meanwhile hybrid (C+asm). ;)
Yes, I also use whatever makes the most sense to be used rather than
what some fashion columnist says is the "new black" this week...oh,
trust me, those people _are_ just fashion columnists, even if no-one
really wants to call them that...because all they review and recommend
has always turned out to be a fad and a fashion...
> And - I respect your work! It needs a strong will to keep
> swimming against the stream. Not meant in a negative way!
Indeed, I respect rene's work and his passion for that work
greatly...it does take a strong will, indeed...unfortunately, he's now
decided that I'm the "enemy" - his rage, unfortunately, is not very
discerning - and he's decided to attack me...which is a shame because,
really, I'm in some cases completely on his side - where most are
not - and have a strong will too...
"Wars teach us not to Love our enemies, but to hate our allies."
[ W. L. George ]
Beth :)
Annie
On 2003-05-11 BethS...@hotmail.com wrote:
> [ 1326 lines ]
_____
((( `\ Holy crap! It's a new record!
@ @`\ ) /
bv_schornak
>>1:0 for you - it seems...
>>
>>
>
>Oh, come on, he's just avoiding my point about him insulting HLA for
>something that he now admits that SpAsm actually does too...it's just
>distraction tactics, trust me...
>
If you can read - there's written: "it seems"... ;)
I don't think, that Betov is _that_ bad. Actually he is a
"straight" person - I'm just thinking about a way to give
some support...
>>As I have been reading the one or other posting from you,
>>I would be interested in one thing - do you really think,
>>that _today_ somebody - except you - will write an entire
>>program in pure assembler?
>>
>>
>
>Not rene here...but, yes, people today will write an entire program in
>pure assembler...on a desktop? Hmmm, maybe not...but in the limited
>space of an embedded system? You might simply have absolutely no
>choice in the matter because nothing but ASM will be able to squeeze
>it all up in the limited space...
>
>"Buy more RAM"? Well, if we're talking about an embedded processor in
>a video recorder or washing machine then that's not a simple
>matter...going up a processor or adding in a larger motherboard or
>more chips or whatever will bring the price of it all up and has to be
>worked in the design because, well, the CPU and stuff has got to be
>put into a box with lots of other components...and customers wouldn't
>be happy with a washing machine twice the size of anything other and
>costing a noticable amount more, just to afford some programmers the
>luxury of C...
>
Sorry, Beth - meanwhile you should know, that I'm writing
OS/2 PM (WPS) applications - and BCD calculators with 256
digits resolution! ;)
<snipped a lot of nonsense about microcontrollers>
Microcontrollers see
<http://www.atmel.com/dyn/products/app_notes.asp?family_id=605>
programming languages 1st C, then assembler (only for the
startup code)! Perhaps you should not tell such things to
people who know a little bit about electronics? I am able
to develop a PCB, assemble it and program this tiny piece
of microcontroller myself! You don't even need math know-
ledge for that! BTW - microcontrollers are _much_ smaller
than a CPU. ;)
>Even on desktop systems, we might not be using ASM all the way through
>a program - it might link up with some C code - but there are places
>where only ASM will do...or, at least, if we don't use ASM then the
>specification goes up and something could become
>unfeasible...remembering that if the specification is too high, then
>not a lot of people will have the latest and greatest so you're
>cutting out parts of your target audience...cut out too many potential
>customers and will there be enough sales to cover the costs?
>
Maybe you should read my other replies in this thread. It
is nearly the same thing that I'm saying - C to avoid the
stupid and repetitive work, assembler to replace all this
bloated runtime and C-library crap or add own functions -
ST-system offers 150... 200 functions (didn't count them,
most are asm, the API stuff is C)!
You've forgotten to mention, how much of this software is
written in pure assembler. I bet it isn't very much, only
time critical code, the rest is HLL - probably C, because
it produces dense and fast code!
Have a look at the example I gave in my last reply to pH!
I know that the simple stuff from your example isn't much
different.
BTW - if your programs look like that - then it is really
not of any importance, which language you use. The struc-
ture is only used as a "template", so the compiler knows,
what size the data has. In a _real_ program data is never
stored in placeholders, it's somewhere on the stack, thus
an application programmer would use addresses rather than
fixed memory locations. Those only are used to store some
static data, e.g. days of each month to calculate dates -
used every time you call the function - so it makes sense
to "hard-code" it...
Before some more people tell me some more things - have a
look at my homepage <http://schornak.de>. There are about
5 MB downloadable programs with sources, so you may get a
clue _what_ I'm talking about. There's a link on the main
page for each language with a picture of my desktop, with
some open folders and files in it. Each file with an "as"
icon holds assembler code, and each with a "c" icon holds
C code. BTW - the long folder holds the library of the ST
system...
>One of the true problems with ASM taking longer is that people
>automatically assume and insist on using highly optimised code
>straight off the bat and, as Randy excellently goes into the details
>of in his "Great Debate" text, _optimised code_ is the true culprit
>there, not ASM...highly optimised code in any language is horrible and
>slow to code up, debug and stuff...the problem then is more
>psychological than anything else that those who code in ASM
>immediately feel they have to code the most highly optimal routine in
>the entire universe or they might as well use C...and, pray tell,
>where did the concept of "good enough" which we were happy to work to
>with C disappear?
>
>HLLs do have an edge in development time terms but it's an edge
>only...there's not as big a gap as people often make out that there
>is...look at those Iczelion Windows' tutorials in ASM about setting up
>a window and look at the C code equivalent...it is different and the
>ASM code is longer but it's very much a case of translating it line by
>line in most places...and, if you're quite happy and used to using ASM
>for these things, you can code this stuff up at comparatively similar
>speeds to a C coder...
>
Beth - if it would be as you try to tell me, then I would
use assembler. But it isn't - there are 2 MB source code,
and it definitely says "NO"!
>As for using libraries to handle the interface for you and
>things...well, HLA has such a library coded in ASM...if you've the
>time to make the investment, then code one yourself and re-use its
>code as often as possible (if you can afford the investment then you
>do "get your money back" on the returns :)...in fact, this is really
>where the big difference between ASM and HLLs shows up in development
>speed terms...but, again, it's psychological...if you're happy to use
>library code then nothing stops you using the HLA library or even all
>those very same C libraries you would have used coding with C,
>anyway...as noted, the Windows' DLL files are C code with a HLL
>"stdcall" interface to using them so there's certainly no real
>problems using HLL libraries from ASM code...
>
>If you're not happy to use library code then that's _your_
>fault...well, not "fault" exactly...but what I mean is you reap the
>consequences of your decisions...it's also perfectly possible for that
>same attitude to be taken with a HLL like C...you could also say to
>yourself "I'm not using any libraries, I'm going to code this all by
>hand"...it would be just as tricky and take just as long...in fact,
>doing it this way, you might hit some I/O situations where you'll
>_have to_ go to ASM to get the job done...those C libraries you were
>calling also have to do that too, you know...it's not "magic" or
>anything...it's merely work that be pre-written for you...all that
>applies to HLLs in this instance, applies equally well to ASM...
>
About libraries see link.
Porting _is_ a point, if you _want_ to do that. Else it's
not worth discussion.
>In fact, ASM falls down on one score and one score alone in
>comparison...the C code can be re-compiled on an iMac, for
>example...the ASM code cannot because it's processor-specific...but,
>otherwise, if we look at C and ASM, then this really is the only major
>difference...and this is not accidental, by the way...C was written
>for coding UNIX...Kernighan and Ritchie's book about the C language
>does go into the sizes of machine words and the decisions made in the
>language design...effectively, C is designed as a sort of "portable
>ASM"...a machine independent language but _only_ as high-level as was
>needed to make it machine independent...once that's achieved, it goes
>no further and delibrately has no I/O functions at all...everything is
>supplied by library...
>
That's why I use it. Additional, the _entire_ OS/2 API is
a big C interface.
I never wrote one line of code for Microsoft OSs, so this
is something I just believe you. OS/2 uses almost similar
things, but if you have a look into the parameters, there
are _only_ C conform structures and stuff. Most operating
systems are written in C, so it would be nonsense to pass
arguments in registers or use the Pascal conventions. But
you still owe me a reason, why I should replace my C code
with assembler code...
Please read _every_ thing I say, then reply to it! See my
first reply to "pH" - there you will find more about this
topic. My life is _too_ short to waste my time with these
things! If I can do it with 5 lines, then it _is_ shorter
than to write 50 lines.
Hmm - my style to write might be much more important than
what I say. See - either we talk about the contents of my
postings (in the entire context) or we leave it be. I may
be a very patient person with a huge tolerance limit, but
you shouldn't try to play foolish games, right?
You may turn every word I say upside down, but my _point_
remains the same - if you like it or not!
>>Structures and calls to functions cannot be "optimized"
>>- they look the same - if compiled from a C compiler or
>>an assembler...
>>
>>
>
>No they don't and yes they do...depends what you're talking about
>exactly...under Linux, one of the operating systems mentioned above,
>then we can make system calls directly via the int 80h interface which
>is completely different and more "optimised" than going via C language
>wrapper functions...
>
Yep. If I put a 18 liters MAN machine into my toy car, it
might run 280 km/h. Bad thing is that the machine doesn't
fit into the motor room and my maximum weight is exceeded
by far...
<code snipped and replaced by every day used code>
.text
# ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
# ? Fopen DosOpen() ? UNIT_40 ??
# ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
# ?-> PAR1 address of filename ????????????
# ? PAR2 open mode - 0 open or create ??
# ? 1 create only ??
# ? 2 open if exists ??
# ? 3 replace if exists ??
# ? PAR3 file size ( may be zero ) ??
# ? PAR4 base address of a FH structure ??
# ???????????????????????????????????????????????
# ?<- EAX errorcode from DosOpen() ??
# ???????????????????????????????????????????????
# ? REVISION: 0.0.1. ??
# ? DATE : 30.11.1997 ??
# ???????????????????????????????????????????????
# ?????????????????????????????????????????????
.align 2,0x90
LC0:.byte 0x11
.byte 0x10
.byte 0x01
.byte 0x02
.globl _Fopen
_Fopen:
pushl %ebp
movl %esp,%ebp
subl $0x20,%esp
pushl %ebx
pushl %ecx
pushl %edx
xorl %eax,%eax
movl 0x14(%ebp),%ebx # EBX = BASEADDRESS FH-structure
movl $LC0,%edx
movl %eax,0x14(%ebx)
movl 0x0C(%ebp),%ecx # ECX = OPEN MODE
movb 0(%edx,%ecx,1),%al
pushl %ebx
pushl %ecx
pushl $0 # EAOP2
pushl $0x0142 # OPEN_FLAG...
pushl %eax # OPEN_MODE
L000:pushl $0 # FILE_NORMAL
pushl 0x10(%ebp) # FILE SIZE
movl %ebp,%eax
subl $0x1C,%eax
pushl %eax # DUMMY-ADDRESS
pushl %ebx
pushl 0x08(%ebp)
call _DosOpen
addl $0x20,%esp
popl %ecx
popl %ebx
cmpl $0,%eax
je 1f
cmpl $0x05,%eax # write protected
jne 0f
btsl $1,0x14(%ebx)
jb 0f # prevent endless loop
pushl $0
pushl $0x0140
pushl $0x01
jmp L000 # retry opening as read only
0:addl $0x40010000,%eax
jmp L001
1:movl %ebp,%edx
subl $0x1C,%edx
pushl $0x18 # SIZE OF FILESTATUS3
pushl %edx # DUMMY FILESTATUS3 ADDRESS
pushl $1 # FIL_STANDARD
pushl 0x00(%ebx) # OS2fh
call _DosQueryFileInfo
addl $0x10,%esp
cmpl $0,%eax
je 2f
addl $0x40010000,%eax
jmp L001
2:movl -0x10(%ebp),%eax
movl %eax,0x04(%ebx)
xorl %eax,%eax
L001:popl %edx
popl %ecx
popl %ebx
addl $0x20,%esp
leave
ret
Would have been about 5 lines of C code! Has special fea-
tures, so I preferred assembler...
Any further comments? ;)
>http://www.theproduct.de
>
>Enough said, I think...well, except to point out that the sequences at
>the end during and after the scroll text are chosen randomly or
>something so it's actually slightly different every time you run the
>demo :)
>
One system crash per day is enough! See "pH" posting!
>>Might be worth to think about?
>>
>
>Indeed...it might be worth _thinking_ about these things rather than
>passing on a Chinese whisper you heard that "ASM is dead" and we
>should all go out and spend $$$$ on compilers which are able to walk
>on water...because, indeed, if this were not true then wouldn't that
>actually mean it's a bit of a con job just to get their hands on our
>money with cheap and hollow hype? Surely not...I mean, that wouldn't
>be a "nice" thing to do now, would it? ;)
>
Sure - I'm posting in an assembler newsgroup, because I'm
praying that asm is dead!
Would you be so polite and tell me, where I said that?
Stay serious! ;)
Q.: What has it to do with the things I wrote?
>>3rd (today not _that_ important,
>>because users are used to get _bloated_ code), the size -
>>no doubt, who's winning this one. But the result of "2:1"
>>for assembler doesn't mean, that it is used in our modern
>>application programming. Sad - but true!
>>
>>
>
>Indeed...but the result can be interpreted remembering something
>you've just noted yourself...data structures will be of identical
>sizes in all languages...that is, a byte is a byte is a byte...so the
>reduction that ASM can provide is a lot more impressive when you
>realise that the "2:1" size reduction you mention (although, the demo
>pointed to actually has a *ahem* "30,000:1" size reduction so we
>shouldn't be underestimating that "2:1" is the best achieveable or
>typical or anything ;) doesn't include data at all...data will be of a
>similar size in all languages...
>
>Also, how did these demo coders achieve such a ratio as high as
>effectively "30,000:1"? Well, by run-time generation of data...a
>preference towards code that puts together the data at run-time rather
>than storing the data "flat" and "raw", as bitmaps, waveform files and
>that sort of thing...in other words, the "2:1" doesn't include data so
>if we can get our data from the code instead then the use of ASM in
>reducing the code size is more pronounced and dramatic...
>
Methinks, they 1st should put some effort in writing code
which runs. Programs which crash Windows in a way that it
don't even reacts to my Microsoft keyboard (CTRL-ALT-DEL)
are very few - let me say one of hundred.
You really want to tell me this is a _good_ program? Bah.
Download ST - there are about 20 apps which don't crash -
even my DOS (Novell-DOS!!!) stuff is running stable!
<snipped words beneath reality>
>Stop listening to the rhetoric of the "politicians" and start
>_looking_ at the actions and the consequences...
>
Maybe it would be up to _you_ to face the reality? See, I
am writing assembler code since almost 22 years now - and
I really like this language - because I have full control
about everything. But my lifetime is _limited_, so I have
to make compromises and use some other language which can
do the stupid work much faster than I. This is the philo-
sophy behind ST-system! I _have_ analyzed dozens of files
which were generated by GCC. To get the clue, where I can
_replace_ bloated C code with assembler. And this concept
isn't a vision or something, my pograms _exist_! They are
small and fast (even API calls are quite fast).
Just try before cry! ;)
>Yes, ASM needs to be reformed, improved, made more time and cost
>effective, its reputation restored...and, well, we can use rene's
>shorthand of calling this "assembly rebirth" but the writing is
>already on the wall about this...honestly...the problem is that people
>aren't reading that writing themselves but are trusting those with
>agendas in promoting HLLs to read it on their behlaf...please, people,
>look at it for yourselves and judge it by your own
>judgement...compiler writers clearly have an agenda...but lazy coders
>also have an agenda in promoting this so that they can remain
>lazy...and Microsoft has an agenda in promoting it too because, it's
>one of the oldest tricks in the book, they can hire _unskilled_
>workers...
>
Sorry, but this is crap. I use the same GAS version since
about 8 years now, and it still serves me well. The prob-
lem isn't a missing new toy, it is the _missing_ people -
who are _interested_ to learn and understand assembler! I
have learned to code with a small booklet, including only
the opcodes. Everything I know today I have learned on my
own. Writing some lines of code, then let them run. If my
code worked, then I went to the next task, else, I tried,
until the code was working well! This _spirit_ is missing
today - not another coloured and animated program to com-
pile even easier than with the last version! An assembler
programmer (if it is a real assembler programmer) doesn't
need more than a simple text editor - and a batch file to
start the compiler. That's assembler, nothing else!
<ok, I will feed my disk drive with a FishMac>
<you're praying my words in details>
>If there's a bank machine that's just constantly spitting out $100
>notes then you can expect a large crowd of people to form around it,
>all fighting to grab as many notes as they can from the machine before
>someone notices that the machine is broken - handing out free money -
>and comes to fix it...note that, just like the people crowding around
>the bank machine, these business people are in a similar state of
>panic and paranoia at everyone else...that's why we hear them
>constantly tell us about how it's a "dog eat dog" world and it's
>acceptable for them to just trample all over anyone else in the crowd
>to stop them taking the notes being spat out of the machine, as they
>want them all to themselves...well, you never know the future...the
>machine might just stop spitting out notes / customers may decide your
>product is "out of fashion" and go with a rival instead...they take
>what they can right here and right now - much like employees try their
>best to do the same, if they can manage it without angering their
>bosses enough to get them fired - because none of us ever knows what's
>waiting around the corner...though, as my usual environmental rants go
>on about, there's an ironic catastrophe in the making there...because
>everyone's out for what they can get, come what may, it's actually
>_creating_ that bleak future that we're all so desparately clutching
>at straws to provide...
>
Good stuff (nice picture)! ;)
<...>
>>Does not need to mention, that this is
>>the wrong way - but neither you nor me (nor anybody else)
>>will change it. If it comes down to big business, there's
>>no room for "proper work" - and since the "professionals"
>>are working this way, most "spare time programmers" (like
>>me) will follow them sooner or later...
>>
>>
>
>Why can't we change things? What makes it impossible to oppose? Are
>you completely sure that the "wisdom" that none of us can do anything
>isn't just one more Chinese whisper...one more perpetual myth?
>
>If we don't play their game then they cannot win...if we don't buy
>crap products then they can't keep making them...if we don't tolerate
>their contempt then they can't do it to our children after us...
>
>They spread another "wisdom"...the saying is "if you can't beat them,
>join them"...well, total bullcrap, I say...no, if you can't beat them
>then we change the rules of the game to something we _all_ can
>win...how on Earth do you think they _always_ manage to win and stay
>on top in these games? Yes, _they_ are following my saying rather than
>the defeatist one...they always win because they rig the rules of the
>game so that they win by default...the rules of the game are our laws
>and how we do things...go and have a look...see who puts the laws
>together and see who "coincidentally" benefits the most from them
>all...they "win" because they define the game itself to declare them
>the winners automatically and to declare all the rest of us as
>"losers" automatically too...
>
"What is good
What is bad
In the future of our world
Me's guilty
You're guilty
'cause we let it go
Yes, we let it go"
[Systems change - (C) Beerdigung 1981]
Ok, let's do something! Practice, don't preach!
>>Before you ask - yes, but meanwhile hybrid (C+asm). ;)
>>
>>
>
>Yes, I also use whatever makes the most sense to be used rather than
>what some fashion columnist says is the "new black" this week...oh,
>trust me, those people _are_ just fashion columnists, even if no-one
>really wants to call them that...because all they review and recommend
>has always turned out to be a fad and a fashion...
>
Beth - Betov asked you if you have ever written an appli-
cation, do you remember? I just thought I answer _before_
he asks me... ;)
>>And - I respect your work! It needs a strong will to keep
>>swimming against the stream. Not meant in a negative way!
>>
>>
>
>Indeed, I respect rene's work and his passion for that work
>greatly...it does take a strong will, indeed...unfortunately, he's now
>decided that I'm the "enemy" - his rage, unfortunately, is not very
>discerning - and he's decided to attack me...which is a shame because,
>really, I'm in some cases completely on his side - where most are
>not - and have a strong will too...
>
I knew, that I'm the only one with a weak will in here. A
good tip besides: Your reply is a little bit _behind_ the
time. Things show a dynamic behaviour, once started. With
most people I could find a common point. Maybe you should
read all of the postings, then tell me what I really said
or meant... ;)
Randall Hyde
"bv_schornak" <now...@schornak.de> wrote in message news:b9lqe9$9j3$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
> pH wrote:
>
> I would never use a proprietary way to publish my stuff -
> things I do are thought to be shared with everyone who is
> interested in it. Using RealAudio (in this example) would
> mean, that people (like me) who can't run RA are _locked_
> out. At this point I definitely say "NO" to RA! I have no
> ambitions to become famous, those times are over.
Nothing wrong with using proprietary stuff to publish your
works as long as you use non-proprietary things as well.
Other than disk space on your server, there is no reason you
couldn't provide the music in MP3, RA, and any other format
that's out there. Depends on whether you're interested in sharing
your music or pushing your philosophy about what software
others ought to be using (having said that, I would point out
that I only publish my stuff in MP3 form, but that's because
I've got some space limitations more than anything else; once
the music files start taking up several hundred megabytes on
somebody else's server, you start to get complaints).
> My philosophy is the "pool of mental wealth" - I've taken
> so much out of it (as everybody else did), so it is up to
> me to give something back. May it be a song or a program,
> an algorithm or a chemical formula - everybody is able to
> give something in return - to share our _real_ wealth! It
> has nothing to do with material riches - it is worth much
> more than anybody could ever pay...
Amen!
> Thus, if some people appear and claim they are the owners
> of a part of this pool now - let it be Microsoft, REAL or
> IBM (yep!) - then I really don't like it (from the bottom
> of my soul). And the only way to show 'em that they can't
> take away common property is to ignore them completely! I
> know that I'm acting against my own beliefs, as long as I
> use OS/2, but there is a long history, and IBM isn't that
> big threat for the free developers than Microsoft or REAL
> prove to be. If IBM would start the _same_ crap - I would
> change to Linux (or ReactOS, if it can do the jobs I want
> to do) at once!
Having the philosophy of giving back is great.
However, it's not ethical to expect everyone else to embrace
that same philosophy in everything they do.
I'd argue that *I've* given a lot of stuff freely to the world.
But there are still some things I'll keep for myself and some things
that I intend to sell and make money off of (and control the copyright).
People do have to eat after all. And a lot of people have to do
programming for a living. We can't all drive trucks or work as
backup musicians and program just for fun in the evenings.
Pick on easy targets like Microsoft and Bill Gates all you want,
but keep in mind that Microsoft employs thousands of engineers,
sales people, managers, etc. Bill Gates may be the richest man
in the world (on paper), but MS does a lot of good as well.
There are a lot of hard working, honest, people at MS who do
a great job. The fact that MS has gotten to where they are
(whether by hard work, monopoly manipulation, whatever) is
not a strike against those people.
>
> I'm a truck driver, so I can't claim to be a programmer -
> and I'm not an "expert" for sure. All the API stuff needs
> a lot of patience to learn and understand, but you can do
> it, if you practice it! That's my way: Learning by doing!
> If you do all API stuff in assembler - I still do not see
> any advantages. Let's start with the message handling:
>
> WinProc(hwnd, msg, mp1, mp2)
> {
> switch(msg)
> {
> case xxxxx : {
> ...
> break;
> }
> case yyyyy : {
> ...
> break;
> }
> ...
> }
> }
>
> Now translate it to assembler. The C compiler generates a
> jump table for the cases, then uses _one_ JMP instruction
> for all cases. If you want to write this code in asm, you
> have to calculate _all_ entries for this jump table your-
> self.
????? Why?
In MASM:
jmptbl dd label1, label2, label3, ..., labeln
.
.
.
mov ebx, i
cmp ebx, maxCaseValue
ja defaultCase
jmp jmptbl[ebx*4]
label1:
...
label2:
...
etc.
Add a new case? Easy, add a new label, the statements associated with it, and add
a new entry to the jump table. The assembler does all the recalculation for you.
If your assembler has decent macro facilities, e.g., HLA, you can even write a macro
that gives you C or Pascal-like syntax for a switch statement. For example, the HLA
Standard Library "hll.hhf" include file provides a macro that lets you use switch statements
in assembly language like the following:
switch( eax )
case( 0 )
<< statements>>
case( 1 )
<< statments >.
.
.
.
case( 10 )
<< statements >>
default
<< statements >>
endswitch;
Even Rene (Betov) would be happy with this one 'cause it's a macro,
it's not built into the HLA language.
It automatically generates the jump table, the single jmp statement, etc.
> You know, how many time you need to get the offsets
> for all jumps, if you have about 50 different cases - and
> if you debug WinProc(), then you have to _calculate_ your
> table again and again, each time you change one opcode in
> the entire function! You may use
>
> MOV eax,dword[EBP+0x0C]
> ...
> CMP eax,0
> JNE case1
> ...
> case1:
> CMP EAX,1
> JNE case2
> ...
>
> instead - it doesn't need the jump table - but this isn't
> better than a C compiler's output. Most of this windowing
> stuff is using switch statements and function calls. It's
> not the question if I can do this in assembler - I'm able
> to do it, anyway - it is a question of the time (and time
> is precious) you spend with it. And the way I use is much
> more effective than both extremes - either pure assembler
> or pure C. It is less time consuming and it produces fast
> and small code. Of course, it is my way, and I don't want
> to convince anybody to follow me.
Switch statements aren't always better than if..elseif chains.
Remember, memory access is slow so if your jmp table entries
aren't in cache, executing that switch statement can be slower.
Also, if one case occurs far more frequently than the other cases,
putting it first can speed things up. Finally, there is the space
factor -- if your cases are spread out (like they often are when
using windows messages), the jump table can get rather large.
Also don't forget, that for small switch statements, the if..elseif
approach is almost always better (say 3-5 cases).
Then again, worrying about the performance of the switch statement
in a WndProc procedure is a waste of time. The time Windows
takes to call the WndProc code dwarfs the extra time for the
switch versus if..elseif, so this isn't a good place to worry about
code optimization.
> But - wouldn't it be worth to think about it? Using C for
> the program "skeleton" doesn't mean, that you turned your
> back to assembler programming - not at all. I am still an
> assembler programmer who uses C - not a C programmer, who
> uses assembler (maybe as "inline" code)!
The problem I see with mixing C and assembly code is that
you have to draw certain boundaries: "this is assembly code" and
"this is C code". Switching between those boundaries can be
expensive (e.g., function calls) or ugly (e.g., in-line assembly).
This is why high level assemblers like MASM, TASM, and HLA
are pretty cool. They let you work at a higher level of abstraction
(e.g., using structured control statements) when performance/size
isn't much of an issue and they let you immediately drop into
low-level assembly when it does become an issue. The multiple
paradigms that high level assemblers support makes it possible
to enjoy the best of both worlds without the headaches of having
to interface the two different languages.
>
> I don't support or appreciate people who are stealing the
> work of others - may it be music, programming or whatever
> else. Everybody should create own "things" - not copy the
> already existing stuff. If there's no sufficient imagina-
> tion - then leave it be. It is a sad thing, that too many
> people spend their money with purchasing "recycled" work.
But what's "stealing?"
If I need to sort some data, do I have to invent a brand new sorting algorithm?
If I do musical parodies (which I do), is that "stealing"? (btw, the U.S. Supreme
Court says no to that question.)
Okay, maybe you're talking at a higher level; e.g., if someone has created a word
processor, is it "stealing" to incorporate features (ideas) from that word processor
into my own? If Microsoft has created an operating system, is it "stealing" when the
Linux crowd write one afterwards? Isn't ReactOS a straight theft of Windows?
Let the people vote with their own money. If they want to buy recycled things, that's
their perogative. If others want to copy stuff, so what? Let 'em do it.
If you believe that everything you must produce must be absolutely original, great!
But no product is perfect. And there is a lot of room to take an idea, make a few tweaks
to that idea, and then produce a modified product. After all, assemblers like SpAsm,
HLA, MASM, TASM, FASM, NASM, Gas, etc., fall into this category. None of them
can claim to be the original idea or original product category.
After all, don't forget what REsearch means. You look at what's available to develop
those new ideas.
Even in the music world there is very little "purely original" work.
Most chord progressions, most melodies, most riffs have been done before.
The fact that you happen on some sequence independently does not necessarily
make it original (as many lawsuits have proven).
>
> Yikes! Ziff-Davis is "sponsored by Microsoft", didn't you
> know it? In Germany we have about 100 computer magazines,
> but only _one_ which really is independent - and it's the
> most sold! [c't, <http://heise.de>]
Unless that magazine has no advertising whatsoever at all, it is "sponsered"
by someone :-) (or someones.)
>
> No problem - as long as you don't call me Rene - like Mr.
> Hyde did... ;)
Sorry, posting to two separate posters in the same message
(which I often do to save time) can get confusing sometimes :-)
Randy Hyde
Randall Hyde
"Betov" <be...@free.fr> wrote in message news:Xns937877A73D...@213.228.0.138...
> "Beth" <BethS...@hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com> wrote in news:c6fva.1227
> $a24.5...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net:
>
>
>
> * AoA 16 has been a universaly accepted Assembly reference.
>
> * AoA 16 was usable for all x86 Intel syntax Assemblers.
>
> * AoA 32 is targetting HLA (and not the reverse as Randy lies).
So you were there inside my head when I made the decision to develop HLA, right?
No offense, Rene, but you don't know what you're talking about.
Want some proof?
Take a look at the "UCR Standard Library v2.0" that've I've posted to Webster.
http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/Page_asm/ucrlib/stdlibv2.html
This code has been around *much* longer than HLA (I wrote it back in 1995-1996
before starting in on HLA). This code was all written in MASM using 32-bit
programming (still DOS, but my assumption back then was that it would be easy
to port to the Win32 console). You will find a *tremendous* amount of similarity
between many of the routines in the UCR stdlib v2.0 and the HLA Standard Library.
This is no accident. *HLA was designed specifically to allow me to do what I wanted
to do with MASM in the UCR standard library v2.0*.
MASM v6.x *is* a high level assembler. I could have used it for my 32-bit edition
of my book and done much of what I wanted to do with HLA in terms of introducing
assembly language more slowly using high level control structures like IF, WHILE, and FOR.
However, it fell short in the macro department. The UCR Stdlib v2.0 code was breaking
with each minor release of MASM v6.1x and that's what drove me to write HLA.
I realize you want to make some sort of point here. But calling me a "liar" when
you have no idea what you're talking about, and historical evidence clearly indicates
this, really doesn't make you look good. Just sounds like sour grapes, to me.
>
> * AoA 32 is more or less unusable for any Assembler but HLA.
Especially assemblers that don't support libraries :-)
Guess what, AoA 16 bits is more or less unusable for any assembler except MASM or TASM.
Oh, the syntax is closer to FASM and NASM than AoA32 is, but any beginner who
attempts to learn assembly language using AoA/16 and, say, FASM is going to have a very
difficult time.
OTOH, any person who learns assembly language really well with one assembler, be it MASM,
TASM, FASM, Gas, NASM, or HLA, will be able to pick up the syntax of a different assembler
within a few weeks. AoA isn't about teaching the syntax for any one particular assembler,
it's about teaching the assembly language programming paradigm. If you don't believe people can
pick up some other assembler once they've learned HLA via AoA/32, then how do expect anyone
to pick up SpAsm once they've learned some other assembler? Granted, you lock people out of the
ability to call library routines, so someone wouldn't be able to call an HLA Standard Library routine
from SpAsm (as they could from, say, MASM, TASM, FASM, NASM, or Gas), but the real
essence of assembly language programming has nothing to do with a particular assembler's syntax
or whatever extra features that assembler supports -- it has everything to do with learning the machine
instructions and learning how to put them together to solve some problem. AoA teaches that
regardless of whether it uses MASM or HLA (and would continue to teach it even if it used some
other assembler).
I'm sorry; it would be wonderful to be able to create a NASM version of AoA, a FASM version,
a Gas version, and even a SpAsm version (though that would be hard without library support);
however, like you I'm only one person and I have a limited amount of time available.
So I concentrate on creating teaching materials that are most efficient for me and my readers.
You may not agree, but there are a lot of new comers to assembly language who email me all the
time praising HLA - they claim that by HLA they were finally able to learn assembly language
programming. Maybe they're not quite the experts *you'd* like them to be at this, but the alternative
is that they'd still be writing VB or C; HLA enabled them to learn assembly. And that's what HLA
is all about. Once they get good at assembly, then they're fair game. Feel free to convince them about
the superior nature of SpAsm and how they should switch to SpAsm. However, until *you* write
a tutorial on the order of AoA for SpAsm, and get some experience with what begineers need in
a tutorial on assembly language programming, you're not in a real good position to say what the world
wants.
>
> * I have *never* seen one single Asm32 programmer recommanding
> AoA32.
Well, *I* am an ASM32 programmer and I recommend HLA all the time.
So you're logic's wrong right there.
However, I'm not the only one.
Do you read the posts on comp.lang.asm.x86?
How about the HLA area on the Win32Asm Community board.
How about in this newsgroup?
There is even a Yahoo group dedicated to AoA32 and HLA. It gets posts everyday.
Keep in mind that AoA16 has had a *10-year* headstart on AoA32.
The large percentage of assembly programmers out there who've heard of AoA16
may not even be aware of AoA32's existence. For example, there was a note on
slashdot a few months about about the fact that AoA was finally coming out in treeware
form. Somebody blasted it saying that it was totally obsolete, being based on DOS
and 16-bit coding rather than 32-bits. (They were quickly corrected, I might point out.)
If you've never seen a single programmer recommend AoA32, then you're quite myopic
and working hard to ignore what's going on around you.
>
> * I have seen *many* times Asm32 programmers recommanding AoA16,
> considering the lack of Asm32 Tutorials (at times when AoA32 was
> already there).
Yes, there are lots of web sites out there that haven't updated their links
to assembly resources since AoA32 became available.
That's starting to change as people become aware of the existence of AoA32.
The problem is, there are literally hundreds (thousands) of web sites out there
that recommend AoA16. Many of those sites aren't updated any more.
Some of those sites are run by individuals who have their own axe to grind
(e.g., they want to support their own assembler, sound familiar?).
But this kind of change doesn't happen overnight. Within the past year
there has been a big surge in popularity of HLA. Schools are starting to use it,
third parties are posting HLA source code on the web, sites are starting to
reference it (and the AoA32 bit edition). Within five years, the momentum that
AoA16 is currently riding on will fade and will be replaced by AoA32.
This will particularly become true in the next few months as the treeware edition
of AoA32 becomes available in bookstores. Further, once I start posting chapters
from my next book (Windows Programming in Assembly) on Webster, you'll see
a lot more people referencing AoA32 and HLA around the world on their web sites.
> Now, for the quality of AoA 16 and 32, yes, there are many things
> i may dislike. But this is not a problem. Randy can not please
> me and everybody. Another fact is that we *need* someone like
> Randy for writing such Tutorials. Historically, this was Randy.
> Well, OK to me. I would only have been happy, and would have
> nothing to say, if, instead of his attempt of breacking the Asm32
> programming (by covering and breacking all commonly admitted
> syntaxes), he had really written an AoA32 in a generic manner.
Not possible.
Again, I'm sorry I don't have the time nor inclination to do a SpAsm specific version.
I'm sorry HLA's syntax is so completely different than SpAsm that a SpAsm user
can manually translate code from AoA32 into SpAsm on the fly.
But I didn't write AoA32 to enable a newcomer to immediately be able to write
code in any assembler. I wrote AoA32 to teach specific assembly language
programming concepts. And I designed HLA to allow me to teach certain assembly
concepts while leveraging the readers' existing HLL knowledge so they can start
programming right away (without having to learn a ton of machine instructions before
they can write trivial programs in assembly).
Trying to write AoA in a generic fashion would simply confuse the reader.
Generic examples don't work. Specific examples do.
Generic examples are great in a reference manual; one that someone who already
understands assembly language programming would read.
>
> This was what *everybody* was expecting from him. By the way,
> i would not to have to spoil my time doing it again for SpAsm.
Yes you would.
All the time I get emails from some confused individual who is trying to read
AoA/16 with NASM. They're trying to type examples out of the book into
NASM and they don't assemble. And they can't figure out why. I always tell
them that if they don't want to switch to MASM or TASM, then they need to
read Paul Carter's book or Jeff Duntemann's book.
AoA/16 is *not* generic. If it were, there wouldn't be a "Translate AoA/16
to NASM project" (quiet though it might be).
While it might be easier for a reader to translate MASM32 code in some version
of AoA/32 into SpAsm, my goal was *not* to write a book that would make the
use of any arbitrary assembler out there an easy task. By goal was to teach assembly
language programming in as simple and straight-forward a manner as possible.
HLA is a great tool for that job. It doesn't suit everyone, but beginners find it very
easy to learn assembly when they start with HLA. Once again, if they want to learn
some other assembler's syntax, that's more easily done *once* they master assembly
programming, not at the same time they're learning the basic assembly programming
principles.
> Unfortunaletly, this was not enough for his personal glory,
> and he felt in urgent need of breacking all of the house with
> HLA.
That's right.
Instead of cranking out three additional books that could have cemented my
reputation as the world's "assembly guru" (I quote from http://www.junkbox.com/assembly.htm)
I buried my head in my PC and spent three and a half years writing over 150,000 lines
of code because having my own asssembler would increase my personal glory.
Sorry, I've written several assemblers in the past; and although one does acheive a limited
amount of ego gratification from a successful product (and HLA has acheived a modicum of
success - I get emails thanking me for HLA all the time), I've also written several books and
I can say without hesitation that people think more highly of book authors than they do of
software authors. So once again, you're making comments about things you know very little
about.
Why is "breaking the house" with HLA any different than what you've done with SpAsm?
> Well, ... Loud applauds!!! Great!!!... :(
Thank you.
>
>
>
> >... I must really get around to looking at FASM...
>
> Yes, you *must* :)
>
> This is a very good Assembler. Tiny, very fast, clean syntax
> (close to perfect, IMO). The outputs building approach is *very*
> intelligent, and highly flexible.
The macro facilities aren't even close to what MASM provides.
So it's a ways away from perfect at this point.
While FASM is a great little assembler (e.g., I emit FASM output with HLA),
it does suffer from many of the problems I see with NASM and SpAsm -
namely, if the author doesn't see a need for a feature he believes that there is
no need for that feature. FASM is perfect for compiling the output of HLA;
it does a great job of optimizing the underlying object code (a big problem with
NASM), and it handles forward references better than NASM (which is why I've
still not created NASM output from HLA). But it also has a much smaller feature
set (e.g., "Tiny") than many of the other assemblers that have been around a bit
longer.
> The only problem is with the Licence. I just hope that, when
> Thomasz will have undertood that he will never make much money
> with the donations he expects to have with this, he will make
> it GPL, (or at least public domain, if he is really in the same
> feeling as Randy with the GPL -...-), so that i, or another one,
> will not have to rewrite it all again...
To each his own.
As long as Thomasz maintains FASM and is responsive to the user's requests,
who cares what the license is like? The source code is there, so you're free to
make modifications for your own personal use. If you want to distribute modifications,
have Thomasz put them in (or distribute diffs to the source code).
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Betov
[Many]
Sorry to make a long post(s) a short answer, but here is the
situation as i see it:
While you are playing the fool with HLA, there are guys doing
the real work for enabling the Assembly programmers with decent
and free tools. Today, these guys are Thomasz, Gordon, and me.
None of these real workers shares your fancyfull opinions about
what Assembly is, and/or should be.
None of these 3 are in the opinion that Libraries are needed in
Assembly (even if i am finally the only one who will refuse to
the end any kind of implementation of that shit in my Assembler
-as opposed to the other two, who perfer please, and satisfy
some users requests...-).
None of these 3 will ever be physically able to recommand AoA32
as an Asm32 Tutorial.
None of these 3 ever thought of writting an Assembler in another
language than Assembly.
Now, for the futur, the success chances for the available
Assemblers are, in order, 1) FASM, 2) NASM, for the Multi-
Purpose Assemblers, and 1) SpAsm, 2) GoAsm, for the "Win32"
specific ones.
As i expected, the fact that Hutch has leaved the Evil Board
seems to have no other effect than making the whole room free
for FASM. By the way, given what i saw, there, today, i must
apologize that i did not expected the things to go so quickly
where i thaught there had to go (...). And, mind you, i am
*very* happy of these events, even if some distributions of
FASM will effectively 'walk upon my own feet'. Not much a
problem to me. NaGoa already does this, and this is not a
problem either.
Again, excuse me for not answering by details to all points. We
already discuss all of those points one by one in the past. None
of your argument makes any sense to me, and, as i see it, none of
mines does make any sense to you either. So, i prefer spending
each available hour at improving my production.
While you are perverting Assembly and missleading beginners,
i am improving and enhancing each day a real tool. Even if you
succeed with your attempt, as i am afraid you will, what really
matters, at the end, is the effective offer of effective Tools,
like SpAsm and FASM. Even if you succeed to dramatically slow
down the Assembly rebirth, by spoiling efforts, competences and
good wills, at the end, my bet is that real works will win
against illusions.
Betov.
Beth
> Bernhard wrote:
> >Regardless if you write code for Linux, OS/2 or Windows -
> >_why_ should anybody be that cruel to her- or himself and
> >code all the procedures, the filling of structures, calls
> >to any windowing function in assembler?
>
> place - because they like it. That you view 100% Assembler as
> some form of cruelty, is... well, I just don't agree, but I've also
> encountered plenty of people who felt that being required to
> learn hexa-decimal was cruel and unusual punishments.
>
> >a huge amount of time to do so, even if you use cut&paste
> >to do some repetitive work...
>
> how good one is, at thinking in terms of processor instructions
> and memory organization, and applying that thought process to
> the task at hand.
>
> an artist would spend so much time producing a painting with
> brushes and meticulous effort, when the "guy down the street"
> cranks out "paintings" with rubber stamps.
>
> Same with music. Why bother spending the time (that is, a lifetime)
> learning as much about music and one or more instruments, when
> we have machines and software that'll do all "the hard stuff"?
>
> Why should somebody put forth so much time and effort practicing,
> and honing skills, in the hope of one day being able to play like
> Midori, when the "guy down the street" sounds just like her, and all
> *he* has to do is press a few keys?
>
> him/her self to some form of cruelty... (?)
*loud applause*
Exactly, exactly...
We could take this to the absolute extreme, couldn't we?
When a baby is born then we kill them off instantly and go straight to
burying them in a grave...well, you see, we're all going to die one
day so this just "saves time, money and effort"...
Surely I don't need to stress that such a mentality would be somewhat
missing the point in a very drastic and highly dangerous way? Saving
time, money and effort is NOT the ultimate objective of life...or, if
it was, then merely being alive is totally ruining the whole
thing...so should we all just rush off to kill ourselves so that the
"targets" and "objectives" are duely met?
Beth ;)
Chewy509
>
> [snip]
>
> By the way, given what i saw, there, today, i must
> apologize that i did not expected the things to go so quickly
> where i thaught there had to go (...). And, mind you, i am
> *very* happy of these events, even if some distributions of
> FASM will effectively 'walk upon my own feet'. Not much a
> problem to me.
What happened? Went searching through some of the forums and didn't find anything?
Chewy509...
bv_schornak
>>I would never use a proprietary way to publish my stuff -
>>things I do are thought to be shared with everyone who is
>>interested in it. Using RealAudio (in this example) would
>>mean, that people (like me) who can't run RA are _locked_
>>out. At this point I definitely say "NO" to RA! I have no
>>ambitions to become famous, those times are over.
>>
>
>Nothing wrong with using proprietary stuff to publish your
>works as long as you use non-proprietary things as well.
>Other than disk space on your server, there is no reason you
>couldn't provide the music in MP3, RA, and any other format
>that's out there. Depends on whether you're interested in sharing
>your music or pushing your philosophy about what software
>others ought to be using (having said that, I would point out
>that I only publish my stuff in MP3 form, but that's because
>I've got some space limitations more than anything else; once
>the music files start taking up several hundred megabytes on
>somebody else's server, you start to get complaints).
>
I'm not in the MP3 biz, but all of the 3000 LPs I pressed
were sold - even Rough Trade in London distributed 300 of
them. The sales price was DM 15.00. Today you have to pay
up to € 40 for one LP (if somebody sells it - it's a rare
item for collectors). Nevertheless, the music is free for
download - perhaps one should read the story, first...
>>My philosophy is the "pool of mental wealth" - I've taken
>>so much out of it (as everybody else did), so it is up to
>>me to give something back. May it be a song or a program,
>>an algorithm or a chemical formula - everybody is able to
>>give something in return - to share our _real_ wealth! It
>>has nothing to do with material riches - it is worth much
>>more than anybody could ever pay...
>>
>
>Amen!
>
Ok. Just like I wouldn't try to convince a Roman Catholic
to eat pork meat on Good Friday (I even would cook an ex-
tra meal for that person), you should not try to convince
me to act against _my_ beliefs. Just _respect_ it. We may
_talk_ about it, but if you _want_ to do this, you should
use a more polite form...
>>Thus, if some people appear and claim they are the owners
>>of a part of this pool now - let it be Microsoft, REAL or
>>IBM (yep!) - then I really don't like it (from the bottom
>>of my soul). And the only way to show 'em that they can't
>>take away common property is to ignore them completely! I
>>know that I'm acting against my own beliefs, as long as I
>>use OS/2, but there is a long history, and IBM isn't that
>>big threat for the free developers than Microsoft or REAL
>>prove to be. If IBM would start the _same_ crap - I would
>>change to Linux (or ReactOS, if it can do the jobs I want
>>to do) at once!
>>
>
>Having the philosophy of giving back is great.
>However, it's not ethical to expect everyone else to embrace
>that same philosophy in everything they do.
>
Thus - it is ethical to take a lot and give nothing back?
Ok - it is the philosophy of our modern society. It is ok
to steal the lifetime of other people to get rich. Nobody
is guilty for it, except those people who sell their life
to others. How can they do that? Stupid behaviour...
>I'd argue that *I've* given a lot of stuff freely to the world.
>But there are still some things I'll keep for myself and some things
>that I intend to sell and make money off of (and control the copyright).
>People do have to eat after all. And a lot of people have to do
>programming for a living. We can't all drive trucks or work as
>backup musicians and program just for fun in the evenings.
>Pick on easy targets like Microsoft and Bill Gates all you want,
>but keep in mind that Microsoft employs thousands of engineers,
>sales people, managers, etc. Bill Gates may be the richest man
>in the world (on paper), but MS does a lot of good as well.
>There are a lot of hard working, honest, people at MS who do
>a great job. The fact that MS has gotten to where they are
>(whether by hard work, monopoly manipulation, whatever) is
>not a strike against those people.
>
Let's come back to the topic and spend some words about a
_good_ company who's only intention it is to make all the
billions and billions of people around the world _really_
happy. How could anybody ever say such a bad thing about,
like "they have a monopoly in software"? They never had -
and if they ever would come to a point where this _could_
happen, they would stop their activities immediately, and
give away their software for free. Of course - they never
did anything bad. All the sourcecode they ever wrote _is_
free available, in concurrence to those evil ExpenseWare-
programmers - who hide their sources away from the public
eye, so nobody can ever see, what they do behind the back
of the users.
Yes, yes, how could I ever have one bad thought about the
most selfless and charitable organisation in the world? I
immediately will throw away all the stuff I've ever coded
and wipe my HDs. Who am I - to make one of those holy men
unemployed? And - of course - I will throw away the Linux
and OS/2 systems, too. What an evil software. Instead - I
will purchase (at least) _one_ copy of Microsoft's latest
OS each month, so they don't have to starve...
Maybe you and me should start to write a funny book?
>>WinProc(hwnd, msg, mp1, mp2)
>>{
>> switch(msg)
>> {
>> case xxxxx : {
>> ...
>> break;
>> }
>> case yyyyy : {
>> ...
>> break;
>> }
>> ...
>> }
>>}
>>
>>Now translate it to assembler. The C compiler generates a
>>jump table for the cases, then uses _one_ JMP instruction
>>for all cases. If you want to write this code in asm, you
>>have to calculate _all_ entries for this jump table your-
>>self.
>>
>
>????? Why?
>
>In MASM:
>
Where can I get an OS/2 version?
Port it to OS/2, then we may talk about the reasons why I
should replace my GAS with it. If you have good reasons -
then I would consider to _port_ the current version of my
system (about 2 MB sources) to iNTEL syntax...
The quoted snippet _is_ the "if then else" version of the
switch statement with jumptable.
My database engine uses this method, either. As you said,
the most used subfunction should have the lowest number.
But it still is no argument pro assembler - I still would
prefer the C version for the windowing stuff, because the
ST-system is thought to be used by C programmers (you may
not find any assembler programmers in the OS/2 community,
with one exception).
>>But - wouldn't it be worth to think about it? Using C for
>>the program "skeleton" doesn't mean, that you turned your
>>back to assembler programming - not at all. I am still an
>>assembler programmer who uses C - not a C programmer, who
>>uses assembler (maybe as "inline" code)!
>>
>
>The problem I see with mixing C and assembly code is that
>you have to draw certain boundaries: "this is assembly code" and
>"this is C code". Switching between those boundaries can be
>expensive (e.g., function calls) or ugly (e.g., in-line assembly).
>This is why high level assemblers like MASM, TASM, and HLA
>are pretty cool. They let you work at a higher level of abstraction
>(e.g., using structured control statements) when performance/size
>isn't much of an issue and they let you immediately drop into
>low-level assembly when it does become an issue. The multiple
>paradigms that high level assemblers support makes it possible
>to enjoy the best of both worlds without the headaches of having
>to interface the two different languages.
>
I don't get your point, why you try to convince an assem-
bler programmer to use assembler - I already do that, and
there's enough stuff to prove my words...
And it is my decision - if I chose the most efficient way
between code quality and the time I have to spend - where
is the judge who will sentence me to use assembler, only?
The ST-system is a step forwards. Not even 1 % of all the
programmers are coding in assembler. My system offers lot
of assembler functions, written to be called from C. This
makes assembler code _usable_ for C programmers. And, one
step further - some of them may consider, that they write
their own functions in assembler, too - because it boosts
the _performance_ of a program dramatically. If there are
people who are interested in learning assembler - then it
is your and Betov's turn!
>>I don't support or appreciate people who are stealing the
>>work of others - may it be music, programming or whatever
>>else. Everybody should create own "things" - not copy the
>>already existing stuff. If there's no sufficient imagina-
>>tion - then leave it be. It is a sad thing, that too many
>>people spend their money with purchasing "recycled" work.
>>
>>
>But what's "stealing?"
>If I need to sort some data, do I have to invent a brand new sorting algorithm?
>If I do musical parodies (which I do), is that "stealing"? (btw, the U.S. Supreme
>Court says no to that question.)
>
Talking in extremes? Of course - parody is one of the few
exceptions - you can't do it, if there is no original, so
this statement is obsolete.
Same to algorithms - as long as they are not copyrighted,
they belong to the public. This discussion between me and
Jeff wasn't about algorithms and parodies...
>Okay, maybe you're talking at a higher level; e.g., if someone has created a word
>processor, is it "stealing" to incorporate features (ideas) from that word processor
>into my own? If Microsoft has created an operating system, is it "stealing" when the
>Linux crowd write one afterwards? Isn't ReactOS a straight theft of Windows?
>Let the people vote with their own money. If they want to buy recycled things, that's
>their perogative. If others want to copy stuff, so what? Let 'em do it.
>If you believe that everything you must produce must be absolutely original, great!
>But no product is perfect. And there is a lot of room to take an idea, make a few tweaks
>to that idea, and then produce a modified product. After all, assemblers like SpAsm,
>HLA, MASM, TASM, FASM, NASM, Gas, etc., fall into this category. None of them
>can claim to be the original idea or original product category.
>
Maybe there was life BM (before Microsoft)? Where a poor,
but smart engineer invented the "Dirty Operating System"?
And it wasn't the _first_ OS, of course. Even Konrad Zuse
hasn't invented the operating system. So - who's the real
_owner_ of this idea?
Where we stumble upon another interesting point. It's the
_proprietary_ software. Even if Microsoft has patents and
patents and even more patents - many not even invented by
Microsoft, they got them together with the companies they
purchased for a warm meal (after they "destroyed" them on
the market with aggressive marketing strategies) - one of
the things they will never get is the "right to copyright
everything"! There still are a few laws left - which deny
them to copyright the air we breathe, water in the oceans
or the "look and feel" of software.
Copyrights come in two flavours: The 1st, like Microsoft,
want to deny _people_ to _use_ software for free. The 2nd
(like me) put a copyright on their software to deny those
_companies_ like Microsoft to take free software and make
it _proprietary_. I don't write my stuff to supply others
with an easy way to make money - I want to support _poor_
people with software they could not afford, if they would
have to buy it.
Nothing wrong with modified code - needs a portion of own
creativity as well as to write the original - better call
it improvement, which hits the spot. But again: The topic
was about commercial stuff, not about the development and
evolution of free software...
And in the commercial field, there's a lot of "stealing",
no one respects the work of others. "Take it as it comes,
put a new logo on it and sell it!" Profit counts, not the
"creativity" of the _product_...
>After all, don't forget what REsearch means. You look at what's available to develop
>those new ideas.
>
OR, to have own ideas about something very different from
the existing and trying to figure out, how to do it? As a
pioneer _invented_ the electric light, the Diesel engine,
the radio antenna, the transistor, ...to be continued...
>Even in the music world there is very little "purely original" work.
>Most chord progressions, most melodies, most riffs have been done before.
>The fact that you happen on some sequence independently does not necessarily
>make it original (as many lawsuits have proven).
>
Might happen while you write software, too. Nobody's able
to know every line of code or every melody which exists -
if you come across this point, there's no _intention_ be-
hind it. In the commercial field, a lot of people is busy
with re-using mental property of others. It is sufficient
to change a few lines (or tunes), and it is "new". But is
this "creative"? I definitely say "NO"!
>>Yikes! Ziff-Davis is "sponsored by Microsoft", didn't you
>>know it? In Germany we have about 100 computer magazines,
>>but only _one_ which really is independent - and it's the
>>most sold! [c't, <http://heise.de>]
>>
>
>Unless that magazine has no advertising whatsoever at all, it is "sponsered"
>by someone :-) (or someones.)
>
They do have ads. But even if Microsoft advertises there,
they're not shy to say that there's a huge safety hole or
warn people to use this or that build-in feature which is
switched on by default in the Microsoft OSs. Or - support
Linux with really good arguments _against_ Microsoft. But
Microsoft can't say "we don't put ads in there!", because
c't is _the_ #1 in this market - what a pity! ;)
>Sorry, posting to two separate posters in the same message
>(which I often do to save time) can get confusing sometimes :-)
>
I was _not_ confused. I took the way you wrote it as pro-
vocation, that's all. I just don't answer to such things,
ok? Have a look at comp.os.os2.advocacy, there "OS/2 Guy"
is acting like you did. It's polemic, nothing to make one
step towards another - to get a common base. Either I ac-
cept the beliefs of the other or I leave it be - does not
mean to leave your own beliefs behind. Just respect, that
everyone else is a human being like you.
So - shake hands... :)
bv_schornak
Sorry that I had the nerve to say anything!
I understand that 5 MB sources ain't enough to be noticed
as real work. It's just peanuts...
Of course - it saves a lot of time to valuate others work
and make funny jokes about, _without_ having a look at it
or even waste a second to remember, _how_ many spare time
they have.
Keep laughing about somebody who spends every free minute
to transform his ideas into working code.
You have made one point - have fun with it!
Bernhard Schornak
Betov
news:339c079c.03051...@posting.google.com:
May be you were searching for some extraordinary event :))
What happend is just, that, as the Main MASM support is gone,
the guys are better inclined to FASM. In this last week, much
more than previously, the interrest, recommandations and
contributions to FASM have increased. See, for example, the
Posts of Donkey about the junction between FASM and GoLink,
the adaptation of GoLink Author for solving a Command Line
convention problem, and so on.
This will achieve in a whole Package: FASM+Linker+Help Files+
RadAsm+... that will be, at the end, very attractive for the
developpers interrested with multi-platforms.
Last week was clearly the switch of the Evil Board from "MASM
Board" to "FASM Board".
Too bad that Hutch, on his side, had open a new MASM Board at
the same time, but, well... this will have the advantage, for
me, that, until i am ban again, i will be allowed to go and
shake the coco-tree from time to time :))
Betov.
Chewy509
"Betov" wrote in message...
> Chewy509 wrote in
>
> > What happened? Went searching through some of the forums and didn't
> > find anything?
> >
> > Chewy509...
>
>
> May be you were searching for some extraordinary event :))
>
> What happend is just, that, as the Main MASM support is gone,
Didn't even notice it missing... I only check out the FASM and alogrithm
area from time to time (only every 2-3 days)...
> the guys are better inclined to FASM. In this last week, much
> more than previously, the interrest, recommandations and
> contributions to FASM have increased. See, for example, the
> Posts of Donkey about the junction between FASM and GoLink,
> the adaptation of GoLink Author for solving a Command Line
> convention problem, and so on.
Saw some of that... plus a few additions to the commandline arguments for
the Win32 version of FASM. All very good work. Just hope that Thomasz
continues to accept the input he is receiving with open arms...
>
> This will achieve in a whole Package: FASM+Linker+Help Files+
> RadAsm+... that will be, at the end, very attractive for the
> developpers interrested with multi-platforms.
Very true... (I use UltraEdit as my IDE, utilising macros). I might check
out RadAsm, after I complete my LBA->CHS conversion code...
>
> Last week was clearly the switch of the Evil Board from "MASM
> Board" to "FASM Board".
The only thing I dislike about MASM is the syntax (took me longer to learn
it's syntax than it did actual x86 asm). It's macro support is excellent
however... Plus CodeView isn't that crash hot either (esp when compared to
D86 (or D386) or Borland's TurboDebugger).
> Too bad that Hutch, on his side, had open a new MASM Board at
> the same time, but, well... this will have the advantage, for
> me, that, until i am ban again, i will be allowed to go and
> shake the coco-tree from time to time :))
That's your choice Rene... I prefer to let them live in peace, and hope that
they will do the same for me...
Chewy509...
Randall Hyde
"bv_schornak" <now...@schornak.de> wrote in message news:b9pe8d$udh$05$1...@news.t-online.com...
> Randall Hyde wrote:
>
> Thus - it is ethical to take a lot and give nothing back?
If there are no conditions on the stuff, or if you live up to the
conditions attached to the stuff you take, it's completely ethical.
Consider the GPL stuff - there is no ethical compulsion for any
user to contribute back to the community. Indeed, the license
explicitly states that it's okay to make modifications and refuse
to give those modifications back to the community *as long as you
don't distribute the binary form of the stuff*.
Why is Microsoft's right to sell their software any less than, say,
GM's right to sell cars? Just because it's a whole lot easier and
cheaper to rip off software rather than rip off a car doesn't mean
that Microsoft doesn't deserve the right to sell their stuff.
Does GM give away all the engineering plans for their vehicles?
Do they relax all their patents so their competitors can use them?
>
> Yes, yes, how could I ever have one bad thought about the
> most selfless and charitable organisation in the world? I
> immediately will throw away all the stuff I've ever coded
> and wipe my HDs. Who am I - to make one of those holy men
> unemployed? And - of course - I will throw away the Linux
> and OS/2 systems, too. What an evil software. Instead - I
> will purchase (at least) _one_ copy of Microsoft's latest
> OS each month, so they don't have to starve...
Sorta like GM wanting us to replace our cars every three years
so they don't starve?
BTW, *who* was it that originally wrote OS/2?
>
> Port it to OS/2, then we may talk about the reasons why I
> should replace my GAS with it. If you have good reasons -
> then I would consider to _port_ the current version of my
> system (about 2 MB sources) to iNTEL syntax...
As you've said (or somebody around here said),
there seems to be only one OS/2 user out there who is
interested in assembly under OS/2. I might have been interested
in such a project 10 years ago, but not now. Heck, I gave up
on BeOS two years ago for this same reason and there's probably
a lot more interest in a BeOS version than OS/2.
>
> The quoted snippet _is_ the "if then else" version of the
> switch statement with jumptable.
That you were complaining about as a rotten way to do things
in assembler (versus C). I was just pointing out that you don't have
to do it that way in assembly.
>
> I don't get your point, why you try to convince an assem-
> bler programmer to use assembler - I already do that, and
> there's enough stuff to prove my words...
Unless I've confused your quote, you said there was no
reason to use assembly because the C compiler generated
better code than the assembly programmer. I was just pointing
out the expense of mixing C and Assembly as your post suggested doing.
Maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say.
>
> And it is my decision - if I chose the most efficient way
> between code quality and the time I have to spend - where
> is the judge who will sentence me to use assembler, only?
But when you argue that one scheme is more efficient than another
and then adopt a programming style that is arguably worse than either,
it's a tough defense. It's sort of like Rene arguing against the use
of the high level control structures in an assembler like MASM or
HLA and then turning around and writing macros to let him use
.if ..if ...if ....etc. in his SpAsm sources. There's just something
inconsistent about the argument.
> >>
> >But what's "stealing?"
> >If I need to sort some data, do I have to invent a brand new sorting algorithm?
> >If I do musical parodies (which I do), is that "stealing"? (btw, the U.S. Supreme
> >Court says no to that question.)
> >
>
> Talking in extremes? Of course - parody is one of the few
> exceptions - you can't do it, if there is no original, so
> this statement is obsolete.
>
> Same to algorithms - as long as they are not copyrighted,
> they belong to the public. This discussion between me and
> Jeff wasn't about algorithms and parodies...
Well, maybe the two of you are communicating on a different level.
I'm still unclear what the original use of the word "steals" is referring to.
Quote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don't support or appreciate people who are stealing the
work of others - may it be music, programming or whatever
else. Everybody should create own "things" - not copy the
already existing stuff. If there's no sufficient imagina-
tion - then leave it be. It is a sad thing, that too many
people spend their money with purchasing "recycled" work
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
At one extreme you've got plagiarism: claiming somebody else's
work as your own. Clearly, this is inethical.
At the other extreme, you've got purely original work.
Where do you draw the line?
If I write a book on Windows Programming in Assembly and
I "steal" lots of ideas from Petzold's book (in C), is that theft?
What if I take an idea for a program written in C and implement the
same type of program in assembly for the purpose of teaching how to
do the job in assembly? What if I translate the code line-by-line from
C into assembly? Where do you draw the line? And who (besides the
lawyers, of course) gets to decide where that line is at?
No where do you see the idea of a "knock-off" repeated ad naseum as you
do in the computer book market. Once someone has a successful book,
expect dozens just like it within a few months. Is this bad? Not necessarily.
Some authors have a way of explaining some things to certain groups of individuals
so that they finally "get it." The original book may not have worked for these people.
At what point does "stealing" apply to music? Are cover bands "stealing" music?
They're just copying existing stuff, not producing anything original.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing with your basic premise. Theft is detestible.
It's just, I don't understand what you mean by theft.
>
> Maybe there was life BM (before Microsoft)? Where a poor,
> but smart engineer invented the "Dirty Operating System"?
> And it wasn't the _first_ OS, of course. Even Konrad Zuse
> hasn't invented the operating system. So - who's the real
> _owner_ of this idea?
BM, by the way, was the day of IBM. You know, those guys
who were the last ones to work on OS/2? They were the detestible
"Big Brother, monopolistic, capitalist pigs" corporation that everybody
loved to hate before Microsoft came along. The U.S. Justice Department
actually won some significant cases against them.
> Where we stumble upon another interesting point. It's the
> _proprietary_ software. Even if Microsoft has patents and
> patents and even more patents - many not even invented by
> Microsoft, they got them together with the companies they
> purchased for a warm meal (after they "destroyed" them on
> the market with aggressive marketing strategies) - one of
> the things they will never get is the "right to copyright
> everything"! There still are a few laws left - which deny
> them to copyright the air we breathe, water in the oceans
> or the "look and feel" of software.
Yeah! Just like IBM did!
Why does that make OS/2 better than Windows?
>
> Copyrights come in two flavours: The 1st, like Microsoft,
> want to deny _people_ to _use_ software for free. The 2nd
> (like me) put a copyright on their software to deny those
> _companies_ like Microsoft to take free software and make
> it _proprietary_. I don't write my stuff to supply others
> with an easy way to make money - I want to support _poor_
> people with software they could not afford, if they would
> have to buy it.
As long as you make your software freely available, those _poor_
people will still be able to use it for free, regardless of what rich
companies do with it. Were you to place your software in the
public domain, for example, MS could legitimately take your software,
modify it, and get rich(er) off of it. But they couldn't stop those poor
people from continuing to use the software that you wrote.
IMHO, this whole "freeware" copyright issue boils down to
exactly what you said: people are afraid someone else will make
some money off their work. Personally, I find that attitude inethical.
"Gee, if I can't make any money off of this, I want to make sure that
no one else does either." Engineers, especially software engineers
generally have no clue what it takes to make money off a product.
They somehow feel that most of the effort, time, and money, goes into
the development of a piece of software. This simply isn't true.
My attitude is that if someone wants to take a piece of free software
and risk their money marketing the stuff, more power to them.
If they are wildly successful, then the original author gets to see even
more of his software in use around the world (and ego gratification
is 90% of the reason people write free software anyway, so this provides
even more "payment", in the form of ego gratification, to the author).
And if someone is getting filthy rich off some piece of free software, how
long do you think it will be before the purchasing public finds out and there
is a negative backlash? Even if the company adds value to the software,
how long do you think it would be before hackers were reverse engineering
those features (or ones like them) into the free version?
>
> Nothing wrong with modified code - needs a portion of own
> creativity as well as to write the original - better call
> it improvement, which hits the spot. But again: The topic
> was about commercial stuff, not about the development and
> evolution of free software...
>
> And in the commercial field, there's a lot of "stealing",
> no one respects the work of others. "Take it as it comes,
> put a new logo on it and sell it!" Profit counts, not the
> "creativity" of the _product_...
I'm not sure I follow.
Are you talking about people like Red Hat?
Or about companies that buy up other companies to resell their products?
If it's the latter, I can think of so many outfits that this happened to, but would
have gone bankrupt and the software would have disappeared forever had some
company not bought them out. The owners of that software got some value for
their investment that they would not have gotten otherwise.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Randall Hyde
"Betov" <be...@free.fr> wrote in message news:Xns937976A8B6...@213.228.0.136...
> "Randall Hyde" <aoa...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:b9n495$o8s$1...@news.chatlink.com:
>
>
> [Many]
>
>
> Sorry to make a long post(s) a short answer, but here is the
> situation as i see it:
>
> While you are playing the fool with HLA, there are guys doing
> the real work for enabling the Assembly programmers with decent
> and free tools. Today, these guys are Thomasz, Gordon, and me.
Yeah, whatever.
That's why Webster just turned over 3,000,000 hits last week.
And, believe it or not, most of the hits these days are on the 32-bit editions,
not the 16-bit editions (though there was a spike on the Christian Resources
page a couple of weeks ago when my music parodies were reviewed on a
couple of prominent internet sites that cover this kind of stuff).
>
> None of these real workers shares your fancyfull opinions about
> what Assembly is, and/or should be.
That's wonderful.
Why else would there be a need at all for these other assemblers?
Then again, I also find your shifting preferences kind of interesting.
One only has to go back so far to hear the praises of NASM.
I'm also sure you'd drop FASM in a heartbeat if a similar assembler
came along with a GPL - even though GPL has nothing whatsoever at
all to do with the technical merits of the assembler.
As for someone who has "fanciful opinions" about what assembly should
or shouldn't be -- at least in my defense I can claim that I don't force an
assembly programmer to use some bizzare software engineering methodology
(e.g., "cut & paste") like SpAsm's author does. You want to use it, fine,
HLA supports it; you want to use libraries instead, great HLA supports those
too. SpAsm kind of boxes you into a corner. That's not good design and
is the major reason I can't recommend SpAsm to most people. Your petty
arguments about HLL-ness and stuff like that is irrelevent IMO. However,
SpAsm's lack of features like conditional assembly, structures/records, unions,
and so on is a big problem for serious programmers (versus hackers).
Arguing that you can do some of this stuff with macros only hurts your cause.
You say HLA's syntax has broken assembly language, well, SpAsm's macros
are in the same category looking nothing at all like macros in most other assemblers
(at least HLA's macros superficially look syntactically like macros in other languages).
This is an important point. Because SpAsm doesn't have a tutorial like HLA does (AoA),
the audience for SpAsm is clearly those programmers who already know assembly
language and somehow feel that SpAsm offers them something new and useful (e.g.,
an IDE). However, since your macros are unlike anything they've ever seen before,
they're probably going to have some difficulties learning how to use them. Not a
great thing if you're expecting them to implement things like STRUCTs using those
macro capabilities. Most people, I suspect, would give up and go back to MASM
at that point. But of course, your macro capabilities are wonderful and I'm sure you
believe that's the way things should be. (p.s., I'm being facetious here... just pointing
out that one can make the same claims about SpAsm that you insist on making about
HLA; immediately after HLA and Gas/AT&T, SpAsm has about the weirdest syntax
for an x86 assembler out there, so you should be careful about complaining about HLA's
syntax).
>
> None of these 3 are in the opinion that Libraries are needed in
> Assembly (even if i am finally the only one who will refuse to
> the end any kind of implementation of that shit in my Assembler
> -as opposed to the other two, who perfer please, and satisfy
> some users requests...-).
Wow. You've found three people who agree with you.
I've got news for you. There are dozens of people (at least) who
don't see the benefit of assembly libraries (most of them are FASM
users, btw). Some people would much prefer to spend ten times as
much time figuring out how to do something (poorly) themselves rather
than read a manual and learn about a set of available library routines that
they can use. That's fine. Once again, HLA does not prevent someone
from doing this should they so choose. While I strongly encourage code
reuse and other modern software engineering principles in assembly language,
I didn't design HLA to *force* programmers to use such tools. I just made
sure that HLA made it so convenient to do so, that most beginners would
opt for that approach. If you want to use "cut & paste" programming with
HLA and make specific modifications to every library module you include
in an application, HLA certainly allows this. The difference between HLA
and SpAsm is that HLA lets you do whatever can be done in SpAsm via
the "cut & paste" approach to programming, but SpAsm doesn't support
the ability to support the use of libraries. I guess in a nutshell, that's my
fanciful idea of what an assembler should be like -- it should let the programmer
write code using the engineering methodology *they* prefer rather than force
a methodology on them as SpAsm does.
You can complain about extra parentheses and operand order and other
trivial things -- but this is all just syntactical sugar. It neither prevents nor
allows any additional capabilities other than, perhaps, the ability to write
more readable code. I suspect that you're not a touch typist because you
try to reduce the number of characters one has to type (e.g., SpAsm's not
using commas to separate operands as almost every other assembler, including
HLA, does). Alas, terseness often results in poorly readable code.
You claim that HLA is ruining assembly language, how does the following (taken
directly from one of your tutorial programs) "save" the language?
..If @Message = &WM_PAINT
RingCLS | inc D$ClsPasses
If D$ClsPasses > MAXPASS
mov D$ClsPasses 0 | InitRingCLS
call 'Kernel32.Sleep' 20
Else
RandomEax | and eax 0FFFFFF | mov D$ClsColor eax
End_If
AskForRedraw
..Else_If @Message = &WM_CLOSE
call 'USER32.DestroyWindow' @Adressee
..Else_If @Message = &WM_DESTROY
call 'User32.PostQuitMessage' 0
..Else_If @Message = &WM_COMMAND
; ...
..Else_If @Message = &WM_KEYDOWN
On @wParam = &VK_ESCAPE, call 'USER32.DestroyWindow' @Adressee
..Else_If @Message = &WM_CREATE
MessageBox Argh "Oh! No, please!!! not that again!...
I want to sleep, now!"
InitRandomize | InitRingCLS
..Else
popad
call 'User32.DefWindowProcA' @Adressee @Message @wParam @lParam
Exit
..End_If
I'm real interested in finding out how this code is so much better than an HLA (or MASM)
equivalent to the average assembly programmer (versus someone who doesn't know how,
or is too "busy" to implement features like conditional assembly in their assembler).
>
> None of these 3 will ever be physically able to recommand AoA32
> as an Asm32 Tutorial.
Well, you can speak for yourself.
It's difficult to recommend a tutorial for people when you've got your
own product to push and there are no tutorials that support your
particular product, isn't it?
OTOH, I am a bit more
>
> None of these 3 ever thought of writting an Assembler in another
> language than Assembly.
What does that have to do with anything?
Do you think the average person really cares that MASM was written in C?
Or NASM, or TASM?
Ten years ago, when we were using 66 MHz machines, people might have cared.
Not today.
>
> Now, for the futur, the success chances for the available
> Assemblers are, in order, 1) FASM, 2) NASM, for the Multi-
> Purpose Assemblers, and 1) SpAsm, 2) GoAsm, for the "Win32"
> specific ones.
It must really annoy you that HLA has been taking off like gangbusters
recently :-)
I realize you have a complete anti-MS view of the world, but the truth
is MASM and MASM32 are an order of magnitude ahead of everyone
else and will remain so for a couple of years. Yes, MASM's popularity
is starting to wane because Microsoft no longer sells it as a commercial
product. But MASM32 has breathed a tremendous amount of life into
the product. People are excited about it.
Heck, SpAsm doesn't support STRUCTs/RECORDs, that makes it almost
unsuitable for *real* Win32 programming. Oh, you can write little tutorial
programs with it and suffer through a bunch of win32 programming without
STRUCTs, but any realistic Win32 programming is going to want real structure
support, Win32 header files, and *gasp* library support to do anything meaningful
in assembly language under Win32. To think that SpAsm is going to bump
MASM32 off the throne is very wishful thinking. To be perfectly honest, the
only way HLA will *ever* approach MASM32's popularity for Win32 programming
is by continued neglect by Microsoft. Then, in about five years, HLA's user base
might exceed MASM's. Unless you wake up and start supporting features that
users want, rather than what you insist on limiting users to, SpAsm will never come
close to MASM32's user base. I have no idea what SpAsm's user base is like today,
but I'd be willing to bet that HLA is doing far better than SpAsm in terms of actual
users. Just review this very newsgroup - how many questions about HLA do you
see versus questions about SpAsm. Yeah, you've got your little mailing list. Well,
so does HLA (and its very active). You had your chance on the Win32Asm board and
you blew it there. HLA is doing quite well there; yes, FASM and MASM are doing
better (MASM is doing *much* better), but this is a board visited by hard core
assembly programmers, not exactly the audience that HLA targets.
>
> As i expected, the fact that Hutch has leaved the Evil Board
> seems to have no other effect than making the whole room free
> for FASM. By the way, given what i saw, there, today, i must
> apologize that i did not expected the things to go so quickly
> where i thaught there had to go (...). And, mind you, i am
> *very* happy of these events, even if some distributions of
> FASM will effectively 'walk upon my own feet'. Not much a
> problem to me. NaGoa already does this, and this is not a
> problem either.
Last time I checked, most of the posts to the board were by other
people than Hutch. While there is no question that Hutch will be
missed, Steve isn't the only knowledgeable person around there.
Then again, to listen to some of your rants in the past, Hutch is
just a leach who gains his reputation on the shoulders of others,
right? So he shouldn't be missed at all :-)
>
>
> Again, excuse me for not answering by details to all points. We
> already discuss all of those points one by one in the past. None
> of your argument makes any sense to me, and, as i see it, none of
> mines does make any sense to you either. So, i prefer spending
> each available hour at improving my production.
Great. Hopefully someday SpAsm will contain a sufficient feature
base that even I can recommend it.
Hopefully you'll spend some time working on better documentation
(particularly a tutorial) so others can actually make use of your product.
I seriously wish you the best of work. I can't use your product because
it lacks too many important features (just as you can't use my product
because it has too many features), but there are definitely some people
out there who feel the same way you do about how assemblers should
be written and used (too bad so many of them have their own assemblers :-)).
>
> While you are perverting Assembly and missleading beginners,
> i am improving and enhancing each day a real tool. Even if you
> succeed with your attempt, as i am afraid you will, what really
> matters, at the end, is the effective offer of effective Tools,
> like SpAsm and FASM. Even if you succeed to dramatically slow
> down the Assembly rebirth, by spoiling efforts, competences and
> good wills, at the end, my bet is that real works will win
> against illusions.
Well, there's your ticket.
Once HLA teaches newcomers the basics of assembly language
programming, you can step in with SpAsm and promote it as a
tool for doing *real* assembly language programming. I don't
really care as long as they learn assembly language programming
in the first place. The difference between my perversion and your
"real works" is the fact that I spend a lot of time providing a full
package - documentation, tutorials, example code, capable compiler,
and support. It's wonderful that SpAsm possesses some features that
HLA does not (e.g., a "true" IDE). However, SpAsm is inaccessible
to most people (even those who already known assembly) because of
its lack of documentation and somewhat strange syntax. Until you cure
this problem by writing documentation, tutorials, and a *lot* of example
code, and until you add features that *real* programmers want (like
structures and library support, and possibly even support for HLL-like
control structures), SpAsm is going to continue to be a hard sell.
I wish the best for you, I really do.
My goal is to encourage people to learn assembly language (the "rebirth"
as you call it). I think that your approach is wrong - forcing people to write
code the way we did back in the 1950's and early 1960's is not a reasonable
approach 40 years later. Someday, I hope you figure that out and adjust
SpAsm accordingly. There are some good ideas in SpAsm that will never
find their way into any other assembler. It's a real shame, as Beth puts it,
that you insist on marketing your product by trashing HLA every chance you
get rather than by extolling the (true) benefits of your product.
Randy Hyde
Betov
___________________________________________________________
* SpAsm not having Tutorials and Demos:
You should look closer to the Page, and you would see:
- An x86 Documentation.
- A Beginner's Tutorial.
- An Assembly Tutorial.
- SpAsmHelp File.
- Several Demos and Examples written by me.
- Test Departement Win32 Tutorials.
- Iczelion Win32 Tutorials.
- Several tenth of users Demos.
- A Link to a Page in french including 2 complete SpAsm-written games
plus a good introduction Tutorial in french.
___________________________________________________________
* SpAsm not having Tutorials that might compete with AoA:
- If you had written AoA in a generic manner, SpAsm would have it
as an Assembly Tutorial.
- Given the quality of my "English", it is better i don't write
too much Tutorials.
- Given my knowledge of pedagogy, also, better i let this done
by the proper persons -though i begin having heavy doubts on your
own pedagogical competences (... Each time i try to read something
in AoA32, i fall asleep. It makes me the impression that you are
trying to compete with Beth Posts, in your BlaBla, sometimes...)-.
___________________________________________________________
* SpAsm missing this and that:
There are things that SpAsm is "missing" because i don't want of
them in. We already discuss about this, and i did not considered
your arguments in favour of these, as valid arguments.
There are things that SpAsm is yet missing because i did not yet
implement them. The developements will go on for, at least, two
more years. Those "missing" features, like conditional Assembly,
for example, have not been *first* implemented because i consider
them of very little use, in real life programming. I have much
more important and better things to do, actually, than implementing
such little use things, like Conditional Assembly, *today*...
___________________________________________________________
* SpAsm syntax looking this or that:
SpAsm default syntax is the x86 Asm traditional one, with several
slight modifications, designed in order to make it as friendly as
possible.
For the various Syntaxes based on the provided BaseX.exe Files
Macros sets, they are as many as one may want.
For the Alternate Syntaxes provided by the PREPARSE KeyWord they
are (and mostly *will*...) be as many as the written PreParsers,
that are executed on user decision. For example, the day you
will write an HLA PreParser for SpAsm :)), users will be enabled
with writting:
>PREPARSE HLA
in the Source, and run *that* syntax, with the perfect understanding
that this is an HLL Preparser and, in no case, *Assembly*.
There are actually users interrested with developping a Basic
to SpAsm Converter. At the end, it is possible it becomes a SpAsm
Preparser. Well, *very good* idea to me... But, if this attempt
goes to its end and successes, the day a user will write:
>PREPARSE Basic
he will certainaly not say "Great, i am writing Assembly", the
same way today HLA users may say this.
___________________________________________________________
* SpAsm not being the Tool for real life Application:
???!!!... Hughhhh!!!... Writing real life Application is the *first*
consideration i have always had all along the developements, and
this is the first and major difference between SpAsm and all other
Assemblers.
Other Assemblers users, use their Assemblers, in first place for
writing Routines and Libraries, in order to improve their HLL
productions. SpAsm is far away and ahead from this. It is really
developed with keeping in mind the final goal: Competing with
HLLs. Though this target is yet far ahead, several points are
already as good, or even *better* than many of their HLLs
counter-parts. Examples:
- The "Click-and-Go" RAD (Yes, not Delphi tomorrow morning, but...).
- The Projects maintainance ease (One single File).
- The Compilations speed (fuck C).
- The errors managements.
With this last point, the better i can say is that, since SpAsm
does exist, (and though, some beginners are really guested for
asking incredible questions, like "Where are the Sources?" //
-This morning- "How do i install SpAsm?" //...), up to now i
don't remember i *ever* had a user asking "I got <this> error
Message... What did i do wrong? What does it mean?". Either at
Compile-time or at Run-time, the user is pointed directely to the
faultive Statement, in the SOurces Editor, and a full talking and
appropriated Message is delivered. Remembers you something,
Randy???...
SpAsm itself *is*, not only a real life Application but *several*
real life Applications (IDE / Assembler / Disassembler / Sources
Editor / Dialog Editor / Debugger / ...). And, though SpAsm users
base is indead tiny and quite new, there are already several users
demos, that, personally, i would not refrain from calling 'real
life Applications', like several available and perfectely valid
little (not so little for some...) games.
___________________________________________________________
* User base:
No, i am *not* considering MASM user base. They do *not* exist.
For HLA user base, you may say what you like, up to now, we
have perfectely seen, at the various 'visible' places, that HLA
users base is made of real beginners trying to understand how
having the HLA up and going. We will see this better in a couple
of years. But, even if you succeed to have 10 ot 100 users when
i will have one, this will prove nothing to me. If you like me
to say it, today, there are much more C and Visual Basic users
than SpAsm users, you know...
As long as i do not consider HLA an Assembler at all, i don't
have to compare how many users each, for evaluating the Asm
success or failure of SpAsm.
___________________________________________________________
* Libraries (again, again and again...):
>"Wow. You've found three people who agree with you."
Well, the opinions of these Assemblers Authors count a bit more
for me than than the one of the guy who wrote an HLL preparser
... in HLL ...
>> None of these 3 ever thought of writting an Assembler in another
>> language than Assembly.
>
>What does that have to do with anything?
Again:
* "Do what i say, but don't do what i do" says the great Master of
Art of Assembly Programming...
* "Assembly is not the proper Tool for writing a Parser, not the
proper Tool for writing an Assembler... Just the proper thing to
be learned and teached, because pupil need punishements".
* "I wrote my HLL Parser in HLL, because i could not take ages to
do it in Assembly". >>> Translation???...
* "I will make it Auto-Compilable later" ....
Great example for beginners!... :(
Betov.
Beth
*loud applause*
Exactly, exactly...
Beth ;)
Beth
> Bernhard wrote:
> >Application programming has to follow several lines. 1st,
> >it should be easy to code. Makes a point for HLL, because
> >it is coded faster.
>
> said, if, for example, you can build a usable Data Base, in
> Delphi, in a couple of Clicks, this is *not* a feature of the
> Language. This is a feature of the IDE/RAD. The actual truth
> is that, indead, there is, today, no such available Assembler
> IDE/RAD able to offer such features. But there is no pratical and
> no theorical reason for what this could not be done for Assembly.
Yes, totally; In my reply, I got so caught up in pointing out the ills
of "jigsaw programming" that I totally missed making this crucial
point too...so now you've made it, rene, I'm just chipping in my full
support to what you're saying...I didn't say this in my reply only
because I didn't think of it at the time and not because it isn't an
excellent point...
It's NOT the language at all...it's the IDE...I've a demo of C++
Builder - where you can do Delphi-style point-and-click building - and
the actual C++ compiler is merely the next version of Borland's long
series of C/C++ compilers...there's one or two incompatible changes
they've made to the language to support the IDE stuff but it's,
otherwise, just an ordinary C++ compiler...
What happens when you click on a button and drag it around to create
an interface is that the IDE automatically grabs some _library code_
which is a wrapper for that type of control - be it a button, listbox
or whatever - and sticks it into your source code...it's a sort of
"complicated cut and paste"...clicking on the button makes the IDE
automatically copy over some library code, just as surely as if you'd
"cut and pasted" it yourself...and then there's other...well, to be
honest, they are cheap hacks...which mean that when you change
something on the interface editor, it dives into your code, looks for
a particular variable and changes the default value coded in the
source code...
It's all very clever programming, I suppose...but it's _totally_
inside the IDE and NOT in the language...and all it really is, is a
sort of "intelligent" cut and paste feature...which, certainly, is
very handy when you do actually want to be able to quickly grab
standard controls and "design" the interface with the mouse...but it
doesn't do anything beyond that...it's NOT a "new way of programming",
really...at least, the programming - the language - has not changed a
single bit...it's only the IDE editor you've chosen to use, that just
happens to come packaged along with these HLLs...
And rene's absolutely right that absolutely _NOTHING_ forbids ASM from
being exactly the same...it doesn't currently exist for ASM because
no-one's written it yet...that's all...why's no-one written it? Well,
rene points out good reasons...the big commercial companies can't make
money from the ASM market...it's still too small and "niche" for such
a large investment and, well, HLLs are an area that they can control
much better...for instance, an assembler strictly doesn't need to be
"upgraded", other than when a new processor comes out to add the new
instructions and stuff...well, that's no good for their marketing
strategies...no, what's much more useful to them is to market HLLs
because they can just re-code their libraries, add some new feature to
the IDE or compiler that no-one actually wants or needs and then
re-package it as "version 2"...then out everyone goes to buy the brand
new version which is really more re-orientation than improvement...
A big problem with ASM, in this regard, is that it's a very difficult
language to force into the standard "turn buying a house into buying
your weekly groceries" strategy that these companies use to make
undeserved large profits...for instance, we don't really need to have
the OS interface changed to new pretty colours every year and then all
be forced to re-buy _what we've already got_...but Windows _will_ have
some new version soon enough that's only going to be 99% cosmetic
changes and 1% that's actually "different" enough to warrant a new
version...but, of course, if it wasn't about delibrately make us go
out and buy the same thing over and over again, and Micro$oŁt were
actually being "honest" rather than out to make money from us, then
these few 1% changes would be put all together until there's enough of
them to constitute a _real_ "new version", if you know what I'm
talking about...they change the cosmetics and drag out the new
technologies so that we have to buy ten versions of Windows to
actually get what they could quite easily have stuffed into one
version...
After all, the 386 - with full 32-bit processing capabilities - came
out around 1987, if I recall...how long did it take for MS to put
"full 32-bit processing!" into their OSes? And, no, though they tried
to market it as that, Windows 95 was only 80% 32-bit processing, large
chunks were still 16-bit...in fact, at least if you're a home user
who's been following the 9x chain rather than the NT chain, you've
_NOW_ - with XP - actually found them catch up with something that
became possible in 1987 and finally dumped their 16-bit code...So,
tell me, does around 16 years to re-compile your C code with the
"enable 32-bit processing" switch turned on, sound like a reasonable
period of time? Wasn't the whole point of coding things in "portable"
C, all to do with removing machine dependencies so that it could
really be as simple as a re-compile and the odd change to your
necessarily machine-dependent parts? I mean, that's the great theory
they tell us to all follow...so, why has it actually not worked? Could
it be that it's theory that's not half as clever as they try to make
it sound...and that, in practice, using ASM would have required just
as much effort and changes as the C ended up needing (basically, a
more or less complete re-write ;)...
And the real reason for using C is that there's millions of cheap C
programmers but only a few truely skilled ASM programmers...and, thus,
the real issue here was that they'd have to give real and proper wages
to a skilled ASM programmer - treating them well because there isn't
enough ASM programmers that good replacements are not ten a penny -
but C lets them just grab some
first-time-having-a-job-that-they-are-happy-with-anything students to
do all the dirty work for them?
Well, simple way to find out...who does MS actually employ to code up
their software? Where do these people live (for example, is it
something like India rather than America because Third-World wages are
infinitely cheaper than First-world wages? Or have M$ - for avoiding
tax - bought an island as a tax haven and send any of their First
World programmers there so that they can avoid contributing any taxes
to any country? ;)? What famous programming names work for the richest
company in the world? After all, let's stress that - _the richest
company in the world_ - so they can afford anyone, right? They can
afford the very best...la creme de la creme...so, surely, there's some
really big famous names working for them, right?
Yes, you've guessed it...these aren't all wild stabs in the dark...I
_know_ the answers to some of these questions...I think we all already
know all the answers, anyway, don't we? Because the richest companies
in the world never do seem to be paying any taxes, do they? Mind you,
that might, in fact, explain exactly _why_ they are the richest
companies in the world...they've by-passed the whole thing about
actually making good quality products that people actually want, with
this whole monopoly and McDonald's-style "globalisation" practices
thing...
We're all being _force fed_ junk food and told that we like it...well,
there's yet another "coincidence"...who are the people who commission
all the marketing surveys which show just how much Americans like
McDonald's hamburgers? McDonald's themselves? Surely not...I mean,
wouldn't that be - as the law courts put it - a "conflict of
interests"?
Beth :)
Beth
> See <http://schornak.de/music/index.htm> and tell me some
> more stories about (my?) music! ;)
Hehehe...cool...you were a funky punk, raging against the machine :)
Reminds me of:
"Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Wild men who caught and sang the Sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do _NOT_ go gentle into that good night.
_Rage_, _RAGE_ against the dying of the light."
[ "Do not go gentle into that good night", an infamous poem by Dylan
Thomas...pardon the use of underlining and "shouting" capitals - it's
poor ettiquette to actually alter a poem in any way, I know - but I
think the last lines work best if you actually shout it with "rage"
too, so I wanted to express that in a Usenet-friendly fashion :) ]
Beth :)
Beth
> More likely, you'll TALK him to death. Hehehe!
Surely, though, that's infinitely preferable to him dying silent and
silenced, ignored and ignorant, surrounded by people who leave him
feeling alone because they don't mingle with the Great Unwashed but to
condescend or try to control them? Naming no names, of course, Annie,
in order to protect the guilty...
[ A notion you should understand because, as a dutiful worker ant, you
happily protect the guilt of our new Queens of a New World Order,
convinced they'll actually care that you're doing their dirty
work...they won't, you know...they don't give us plastic gadgets,
enough pizzas to give us all heart attacks, a new model 4x4 to drive
and wall to wall TV entertainment because they like us or
anything...they give us these things because it gets the Great
Unwashed - of which you are certainly a part from the perspective of
the real Big Cheeses - off their backs and keeps us obiedent...as well
as to make lots of money to keep the big, big divide between them and
us solid...again, so they never have to go near any of those
"Unpeople"...the scum, the riff raff, the crap on the heels of their
shoe... ]
Remember, Annie...War is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is
strength...
We're (conveniently) fighting this continual war against an unknown
"threat", which calls for hanging 'em all, locking 'em up and throwing
away the key to teach 'em all a lesson...the Queen ant cries "off with
their heads!" at this Mad Hatter's tea party and we must surely
comply...
Our Civil Liberties?!? Are you mad?!? There's a "threat" out
there...an "evil", which is very "evil" because it's pure
"evil"...thinking "evil", doing "evil" (have I scared you enough yet?
Or should I repeat "evil" - without any evidence or qualification as
to why we, apparently, have satan hounding us - a few hundred more
times in all the media everywhere?)...a "threat" that will damage our
Liberty, which we need to protect...so how can you be worrying about
Liberty when there's Liberty at stake?
It's those foreigners, I tell ya...black people coming here and
stealing our jobs, sleeping with our women and offending us with their
"culture"...send 'em all packing...lock 'em up and throw away the
key...hang 'em all...drop bombs on 'em...
Yes, they'll learn to be peaceful when we blow them all up...and they
_do_ need to be taught how to be peaceful like we are, because of what
they did blowing our people up...so, yes, we'll show them peace,
alright...we'll rain down peace on their heads and give them a one-way
ticket to oblivion...how dare these animals - these unhumans, these
non-people, these "evil" - blow up ordinary people? Don't they know
that people are more important than animals? Well, we'll show
them...they'll be peaceful when we blow up their people, as peaceful
as we are when they blow up our people...what do you mean
"contradiction"? What does "double standards" mean? Oh my goodness,
you actually believe these black, towelheaded animals are people also
and that they would want revenge for the violence perpertrated against
them too? Of course they wouldn't...they aren't people...they don't do
this because they have been wronged like we do...they do it because
they are "evil"..."evil"..."evil"...do not even dare to ask _why_ they
do what they do or you may be twisted into their "evilness"...you're
not supposed to ask difficult questions like that, you're just
supposed to accept the plastic pre-packaged "they are evil" answers on
the TV news...do not dare challenge whether we are any better...
Of course we're better...we're civilisation...they are barbarians and
animals...what do you mean "historically, the cradle of all
civilisation was founded by these 'barbarians' who actually took the
world out of barbarity...mathematics, irrigation, social order..."?
This couldn't be so...the new and constant educational reforms that
our New Rulers of the World insist that the schools teach, aren't
teaching this sort of history to our children...so it cannot be
so...they haven't made any TV programmes about it...so it cannot
exist...
No, they are the "evil"...what more nonsense are you talking about
now? "The CIA created and funded Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida? The
bin Laden family and the Bush family are both part of the Carlyle
Group, conveniently profitting from this all (its chairman
conveniently Prime Minister of Britain when the last Gulf War happened
and, also, Bush snr. is part of it...well, well, well...how
interesting that all the warmongers for both wars are part of an
organisation that profits from it all...will Blair be joining the
Carlyle Group when his political career is over too? Because, so far,
that pattern has not one exception)? Members of the bin Laden family
were actually Bush's guests on his ranch on 9/11 (though Bush refuses
an invite to Chirac because he broke the unity of Western greed and
its Orwellian control? How odd they seem far, far more enraged by a
'traitor' than by 'those folks' who murdered their people)? The
Taliban and Afghanistan were created and armed by America and Russia,
ruining another country so that they could wage their fight and
creating all the vile attrocities of the Taliban and the warlords
forever fighting? The 'situation' in East Timor was caused by the West
striding in and dividing it all up for commercial interests and they
were just trying to put an end to it all? North Korea was happy to
stay unarmed until America started calling for a continual war of
imperial conquest to stop a conveniently never-ceasing 'threat'? Until
America starting labelling them 'evil', a sure sign that the war
machine was heading their way? That these same tactics are being
applied to most Third World nations with unpayable debts that keep
them forever poor and indebited to the West, which conveniently makes
them incredibly cheap labour...effectively slaves to a peoples who
pretend they have abolished slavery? That America and Britain are the
biggest arms dealers in the world? Selling arms to countries they then
attack for possessing what they sold them? Selling arms to countries
that they then send peace envoys too, claiming to want the warring to
end when their public demands action for peace? And there's much, much
more than this too?"...
None of this could be true...the woman with the perfect white teeth
and plastic hair on the TV hasn't mentioned any of this to me...and
she's so pretty and the theme music to the news sounds so important
and serious...well, she's got to be telling the truth and not omitting
anything that's distasteful for Westerners to know is being done in
our names, in order to profit _only_ the corporate interests of a
choice few...I mean, it looks so professional and is so
entertaining...
I mean, it's just not possible...we couldn't all be living a lie...no,
I refuse that because it's too big and far too dangerous and it's
scaring me...no, it must be the foreigners - who are "evil" - that is
creating the ills of the world...because that's simple...it's short
and sweet and sounds really good when the woman on the news tells it
to me...it must be this and not what you're saying because it's what I
want to hear...the people telling this to me are giving me presents of
plastic gadgets and good movies and...and...no, we could not be their
effective slaves working for the corporations that create such
"evils"...
We have our democracy and the politicians tell us they listen to
us...granted, I've yet to see them actually do that but they promised
me they would make things better (just before they ignore public
opinion and do what they were going to do, anyway...avoiding the
question when asked why they haven't delivered on their promises)...I
mean, the politician cut my taxes so he must be good...granted, there
were other new "charges" brought in by laws which meant that I ended
up paying just as much as if the tax cut hadn't been there...but, no,
he cut my taxes so he must be good...it couldn't possibly have just
been a cheap and pathetic bribe that a selfish git like myself is so
shallow to fall for...
We are peaceful! We are free! We are educated!
What do you mean "war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is
strength"?
No, I don't know what this "1984" book you're talking about is...they
didn't teach us anything about that in school, it's not on the
government's approved reading list...is it about guns and cowboys? I
do like books about guns and cowboys...shooting those "evil"
indians...they were animals too, you know...they are stupid, you
see...I saw it on the movies, they talk like "me big chief running
water" when they try to speak English...I mean, they were different
and didn't speak English properly - like all those "evil" foreigners
that cause all the problems in the world - so they had to be
stupid...that's why it was necessary to attempt genocide there
too...it's all "mercy killing", you see...we put 'em down like the
dogs they were...
Beth :|
Beth
> Whatever trips your trigger, I always say. But, have a look at
> the two programs, here:
>
> http://www.theproduct.de
Wow! Great minds think alike, pH...but, I suppose, once you've seen
this demo, it's the natural choice for quoting to make the point with
sledgehammer-like impact...hehehe ;)
Beth :)
Beth
> See it this way: There is only _one_ C++ standard, which
> is kept high by all C++ compilers. And there is no fight
> like we have it in the assembler range! If this would be
> the case, C++ wouldn't be the current #1 for development
> environments!
Of course, this is the case because it _must_ be the case...
That is, assembly is all over the place and different with every
implementation because assembly _works to the machine_...that is the
"standard" here...the actual physical object that does all the work...
Whereas, with something like C / C++, it's working to something that
actually isn't there and doesn't exist...it's all "virtual"...so, it
needs a "standard" of some kind - though the stricter the better for
the benefits of "compatibility" - or, well, there is no guiding
influence or bounding box for it...
If there were no standards then...well, BASIC lacks this sort of
thing...so, compare something like C64 BASIC to QuickBASIC to
VisualBASIC...and this is an example where all three were written _by
the same company_, Microsoft...compare these to BBC Micro BASIC (has
to be one of the best BASIC implementations _ever_ ;) and it's
difficult to easily consider these all to be the same
"language"...about the only common thread between all BASICs is the
"PRINT" and "FOR" commands (sort of...I've seen great variation in
implementation of these two also ;), with everything else up for grabs
and slightly different between them all...
In short, without the "standard", C / C++ can fall into the same sort
of outright anarchy that BASIC is...by making C so simple and minimal
but yet so flexible, they set up something that was perfect for
"standardising"...and, in doing so, getting this great "compatibility"
thing out of it all...although, until ANSI stepped in, it was NOT as
clear-cut as people might be tempted to think looking at it
now...K&R's book about C discusses the delibrate design goals of easy
compiler implementation but even in that book, the original
"standard", it discusses some quite wild differences of syntax and
implementation even on the small handful of machines it had only just
started to populate...
In fact, this style:
-------- 8< ---------
int main(argc, argv)
int argc;
char *argv[];
{
}
-------- >8 ---------
...gets called the "K&R style"...though it's "obselete" now by the
standard, this was the original way to write parameters in C...
The point I do often stress is that C _was_ designed - the authors
themselves state their design decisions in the book I've mentioned -
as a form of "portable ASM"...that is, to abstract ASM enough away
from the machine so that the code was not machine-specific...but,
_crucially_, not a step further...there was no intention or design to
go away from low-level ASM-like coding for the sake of doing so...it
was _only_ about making the code portable...nothing else...
That's why there's no fancy I/O included in the language...that's why
the language truely is very "bare" and minimalistic...the subtle point
is that it was not designed to "replace" ASM because they thought ASM
was "dead", "evil", "too difficult", "slow", etc. - no, they even, in
places, sound like they are quite fond of ASM - but it was all to do
with "replacing" the non-portability of ASM...unfortunately, in doing
so, you do lose other things that ASM provides as benefits...but,
well, UNIX had to be "portable" so C had to be "portable" too...that
was an important thing _for writing UNIX_ that, in that instance, they
decided that it was a trade worth making...
Now, why I've intervened here to say these things is because the
attitudes people hear these days are actually NOT reflecting what the
original intentions and design goals were (plus, "new", "delete" and
exceptions in C++ - as OS writers know because it causes headaches
that don't appear at all in C) not to run away from ASM and the
low-level...it was not to be "superior" as many talk today...
In fact, it really, really should be seen from the reverse perspective
because that's actually what was going on...other HLLs prided
themselves on how they were nowhere near the low-level at all...they
were all talking in "the more abstract, the better"...COBOL and BASIC
were selling themselves on their "English-like" attributes...how you
had to know absolutely nothing about machines at all to understand
them...they were on the quest towards some dream - now, apparently,
given up and forgotten, as no-one claims any "English-like" stuff
anymore to sell a language - where people could just "talk" to the
machine in English and it would just understand...an artificially
intelligent language, in fact...
But C's difference was that it did NOT forsake the low-level...it only
forsaked non-portability (but, as noted, UNIX was to be "portable" so,
clearly, the language it was written in had to be "portable" too...or,
well, the whole plan just wouldn't have worked properly
;)...attitudinally, C is on ASM's side...and that's the point that I
think gets lost in battles and by those who come to C and don't
realise just how close in structure it is to ASM in places...
It's what earnt C the semi-joke title of being a "medium level
language"...it doesn't _want_ to be a HLL and it tries to stay as
low-level as it possibly can...but the "portability" requirement means
that, yes, it can't be truely low-level and it has to, regrettably,
abstract some things away...not the attitude here...in a weird sense,
C's on ASM's side...C++ has traitored the cause a little, granted, but
founded on C, there's a semblence of the attitude retained...
And, you know what, I think that C's success is actually all down to
that very attitude...yes, the biggest bugger of a problem with ASM is
the fact that it's non-portable...if ASM was naturally portable -
because, say, there's only one "standard" CPU design (although, would
we want only one "standard" CPU design? It's something to debate, I
reckon ;) - then this entire "ASM vs. HLL" argument would actually
become moot and irrelevent...
In so far as that is possible, though, C is that language which gets
closest to this...the stated original design goals make it clear that
this was central to the whole idea...the minimalism and the way it has
lvalues and expressions that can be composed and such was to try to
make it really simple to write C compilers...the authors state it
outright as something they delibrately designed...because it all
follows pretty simple, consistent syntax rules that are not to
difficult to write a compiler for...that was a stated design
goal...and you could look on that as akin to wanting to be as simple
as the "1:1" of ASM...in comparison to compiler, simple "1:1"
assemblers are much easier...
The authors of C also explain the design and rationale of C in very
much "how can we write ASM without portability problems?"
terms...unlike a similar discussion about, say, BASIC, they _do_ go
into machine-dependent problems like different sized machine words
(this was even before "8 bits = a byte" was standard and one machine
had 9 bit "bytes" ;)...the opening overall description that they make
of C tends to say it all...
"C is a relatively 'low level' language [...] C deals with the same
sort of objects that most computers do, namely characters, numbers and
addresses [...] C provides no operations to deal directly with
composite objects [..] there is no analog, for example, of the PL/1
operations which manipulate an entire array or string. The language
does not define any storage allocation facility other than static
definition [...] there is no heap or garbage collection [...] C itself
provides no input-output facilities [..] no wired-in file access
methods. All of these higher-level mechanisms must be provided by
explicitly-called functions."
[ Extract from the "introduction" chapter of "the C programming
language" by Kernighan and Ritchie...Prentice-Hall, 1978 :) ]
I mean, what sort of a HLL sells itself in its introductory chapter on
solely _negatives_...it's not telling us what get fantastic features C
has, it's telling us exactly what C does _NOT_ have...does this sound
like the typical HLL sales pitch, where they give a big bullet point
list of all its "integration" and "compatibility" features? No, it
doesn't...because that was never the point...
The success of C, in fact, tells me something entirely
different...BASIC and Pascal are, basically, much simpler
languages...all the things are built in...as the C book itself jokes
as a potential criticism of C, "You mean I have to call a function to
compare two character strings?"...this _is_ a grave deficiency of the
language in HLL terms...but to ASM programmers we recognise that such
Liberty and the idea of composing more elemental operations into
larger "combined" operations is _real_ programming and worth every bit
of extra effort it might entail...
BASIC programmers and Pascal programmers would forsake their "bells
and whistles" compilers...and they went over to C..._everyone_ went
over to C...its dominance is unrivalled and almost invurnerable...when
they bring out new languages like Java, they all are forced to adopt
C-like syntaxes in an attempt to dupe people that it's still C...
Do you see what I'm saying? The success of C and how it managed to
attract people from all languages - with all those built-in features,
simplicity and "English-like" syntaxes...things many would claim are
so "superior" and "abstract" that no-one, by their rationale, should
even be looking at the awful "low-level" nature of C...this tells me
something important...
Low level programming is real programming...low level programming is
actually what programmers want, prefer and need...despite the claims,
"the more abstract, the better" claims are shown to be false when
everyone flocks to the language which was founded on the entirely
reverse belief...
The success of C demonstrates, I believe, that were only ASM
"portable" - that most major intractable "problem" about ASM
generally - then ASM would have been the great dominant force that C
became...
Because, let's consider this by comparing HLLs but in terms of all the
things people insult ASM about...is C "more difficult to read" than
BASIC? Yes, it is because BASIC is "English-like"...is C "slower to
develop with" than BASIC? Yes, it is...is C "more difficult to debug"
than BASIC? Well, certainly, BASIC is often interpreted and tends to
have some of the best debugging features there are...period...so, yes,
it is...also, can C deliver more "lean and mean" code than BASIC? Yes,
certainly...is C more flexible and expandable than BASIC? Yup, only
ASM is better - has more Liberty - than C at this...
But, yet, people forsaked BASIC in droves to go running to C...and
it's more than just hype surrounding a new language...because they
didn't just go over to C from BASIC, they _stayed there_...and that
means C actually delivered what they wanted...despite all the "bells
and whistles" that HLLs like BASIC and Pascal and others offer...
The very same "myths" that people apply to ASM as being something to
avoid, just happen to be applicable to a relative comparison of C to
any other HLL programming language you care to choose...and people
_stay_ with C and are loyal to it...its dominance is unrivalled and
approaching invurnerability, it's that popular...
Can we now see what the success of C is actually telling us ASM-ites?
All the "myths" are 100% _false_...C shows this clearly...and all the
advantages we claim for ASM are 100% _real_...ASM is just one step
"better" than C is from the other HLLs...what tempted them away from
BASIC and Pascal towards C, we can provide even more of and take it to
its extreme...
So, why has ASM fallen down? A number of reasons...the prime one is
the non-portability...it's a small thing but it's, unfortunately,
non-trivial...you say "non-portable" and everyone runs away in droves
as if a plague has been unleashed...
I personally think that this point is often over-rated and actually
not important in far more cases than people will give credit
for...especially when we're talking x86 PCs, which dominate 99% of the
market, anyway...especially when modern layered device driver OSes
already factor out one large chunk of the "portability" problem, at
least in terms of varied hardware...especially when GUI programs,
whatever language (C is of absolutely no use here for "portability"),
have to be re-written because there's no standard or, often, even
basic similarity between how the GUIs all work...the greatest "myth"
of them all is that "portability" is worth killing your grandmother
for...it's no longer true or that important...yes, when there was a
million different competiting architectures, it was a BIG
problem...but the situation changed...x86 PCs almost entirely run the
show for "mass market" things (obviously, slightly different for the
embedded market...but, lo and behold, they would lean towards ASM,
anyway, for different reasons like cost...they are already a large
part ASM-ites who need no convincing, anyway...so, yes, the situation
isn't the same there...but, coincidentally, the conclusion ends up
similar, regardless ;)...
If people were still not hearing the _ANCIENT_ scare stories about how
using ASM would alienate their programs for their mass market
(absolutely an important point when Amigas were competiting with STs
with Amstrads with Spectrums and such...a situation now quite a few
decades old and totally the reverse with a single machine wiping out
all competition to an absurd "is there anything else?" level)...if
these scare stories and "myths" based on things that are no longer
true because everything's changed in the decades since they actually
had relevence, then ASM's reputation could be restored...it's like
someone making a trivial mistake in their youth - trying some cannabis
once or something ("I didn't inhale" ;) - and being forever labelled a
"drug dealer" forever more...this is the source and also the injustice
of this _myth_...ASm isn't that misguided youth anymore...people need
to be informed of this...
That's the major problem, really...but, yes, because ASM got the bad
reputation and everyone is now shunning it as the black sheep of the
family, there's no market...there's no investment...and, basically,
there's no development of the tools...at least, all the innovation and
progress comes from "hobbyists" and we can be grateful to Randy, rene,
Jeremy Gordon, the NASM brigade, the FASM-ites and others that they
are keeping the spirit alive...and you are all doing an excellent job,
in my opinion...really, I support you _all_ because, though we all may
disagree on minor points here and there, you're all warriors in
fighting the same cause...and, really, each of these tools does
actually have something that the others doesn't...I don't really think
there's yet any clear winner here...a sort of "this beats that in this
context but, in a different context, that beats this" so it all ends
up about what is the most useful "this" and most applicable "that" for
what you want to do...
But, anyway, because it's volunteer stuff for a niche market...well,
our tools just aren't moving forward and progressing at the same speed
that HLL tools do because, simply, not enough hands, no investment, no
commercial sales where some of the profits are ploughed back into R&D
and all that sort of thing...this is not an insult, mind you, as the
tools do move forward probably faster than one could expect,
considering such odds stacked against it...
So, now that you mention C's #1 spot, I couldn't help but intervene to
point out that its position there is actually in large part because of
its ASM-like attributes...so, really, I understand the general gist of
what you're saying about C but, well, if we look at the wider picture,
the historical context, the comparison of C with other HLLs, how C
fits in with the standard ASM "myths" then it actually does ASM a
great, great favour...and puts ASM into a very good light...in fact,
some reading this may find this strangely sounding non-defeatist and
non-apologetic...very alien to hear ASM being spoken of
proudly...which when talking about ASM is rare indeed...even the
strongest ASM-ites do tend to bow their heads in "shame" from time to
time...but thinking it over, I honestly think there's absolutely NO
REASON WHATSOEVER to do that...if we think of this, for a second, as
"ASM & C vs. HLLs" (temporarily taking C as "medium level" rather than
"high level"...to look at things in "low level programming vs. high
level programming" with the actual specific languages removed :)...
Perhaps I won't be able to make a convincing case for ASM in
particular...but I think, especially with C as the #1 and for the
reasons stated above, that I can make a good case that _low level
programming_ as general concept (taking ASM and C as the example
languages for that) has clearly - in actual _practice_ - proved
itself...for if it hadn't proved itself, why does C continually -
decades after its "birth" - still go around collecting up HLL
programmers from all these "latest and greatest" highly abstract
languages?
Simply, because that's not what programming is about...it's not
_actually_ - in _practice_ - what programmers want or need...and the
whole set of "myths" like "difficult to read / write / debug" - just
as applicable to C in comparison to every other language but ASM - are
merely negative propoganda to aim at anything you don't like or isn't
the fashion that day...it's what you say when you don't want anyone
using that particular language...
And, I'll point out what people have hinted about, if you take C "raw"
without any "standard libraries" then it actually leaves you in a very
similar "what? I've got to do all of this myself?" position that ASM
is accused of...and, yes, though HLA's library is not the route for
optimal efficiency (Randy's the first to point out that this is NOT
it's raison d'etre...it's just like the C library...it's for
simplicity and "portability" only...don't choose these options - ASM
or C - if this isn't what you want for what you need to do :), it
demonstrates the point that ASM can start to display C-like
characteristics, just by adopting the same attitude as C with using
libraries to get "portability" and "isn't this all very easy to code?"
stuff...
The one thing that ASM inherently can't break and stands as the one
thing that, yes, may ruin ASM as an option is its
non-portability...HLA's "portability" is OS portability, it still has
to be an x86 chip (for somewhat obvious reasons :)...
That's the big "problem"...the non-portability...everything else can
be "solved" in _exactly the same ways_ that the HLLs solve them...all
the HLLs have done is solved these problems with things like libraries
and then it's "standard" to supply these libraries with the
language...really, cripple C and use it "raw" without any libraries at
all...you'll find the situation not too dissimilar and likely to
remind you of ASM programming in its spirit...
So, my argument here is to question the whole "portability"
myths...where is this _truely_ important? Now, there's plenty of
places where it's _supposedly_ important and a programmer might spend
a lot of time using OpenGL for "portability" with their console
game...but does it, in the end, turn out to be worth it? Sometimes,
yes...but there's the keyword: "sometimes"...too many people act as if
it's "always" rather than "sometimes"...so let's try to identify
_when_ it is useful and when it is _not_...and also things like, if
you did code it in a certain way then, yes, it might require
re-writing to port it over to something else...but, well, does the
"cost-benefit" balance out correctly? Because one thing the usual
myths and propoganda tend to neglect to mention is that "portability"
_COSTS_ too...it's reason #1 for slow, bloated and ugly
applications...the main "evil" we now have to face on a regular
basis...it's not just a case of "oh dear, ASM will require more work"
(though, rene's right to point out, "is this always true?")...but a
case of degrees and measures...is the extra work _worth_ doing, when
we balance out the costs and the benefits of doing so?
For illustrative example, using ASM may take a games programmer a
little more time to develop...BUT, for this extra work, the game has
half the "minimum specification" of a C version...thus, more users
have a machine that's "good enough" to play the game...even more, as
people tend to follow a "I'll stick with this machine until it's so
obselete I'm forced to upgrade", then half the specification will mean
_more_ than double the potential market...and the _real_ thing here to
examine is whether the cost of the extra time for using ASM balances
with the benefit of the possibility of selling twice as many copies of
the game...that's NOT a clear-cut issue...and, crucially, it doesn't
always favour HLLs...though, people talk as if it does and that's a
myth that needs exploding...
If I hire rene or Randy (and others here...but these two are sort of
the topic of conversion so I'll use them as obvious examples :) to do
this in ASM then they are certainly skilled with ASM...we can see from
HLA and SpAsm that they do get the job done well and relatively
quickly...now, if I hire some C++ programmer then _C++_ may, on
average, be faster to develop than ASM for this sort of thing but,
well, the _programmer_ and his / her skill is a variable that can't be
discounted...if this is any old "average" C++ programmer then, despite
how fast or slow a _language_ may be, Randy's and / or rene's _skill_
at doing things quickly might actually _cancel out_ any advantage of
the language...dare I say, they might even beat the poor C++
programmer's socks off and run rings around them...nothing to do with
language here, really, all to do with the programmer's skill and
experience and comfort with using what they are using...so, in fact,
it is a possibility that it could be coded in ASM and we still get our
code finished in perfectly reasonable time...
We can, for a more concrete example, consider a _known_ skilled and
experienced coder who does use ASM when applicable and has a famous
track record by which to judge how fast they are at developing
things...Abrash is a low-level coder (not always ASM, granted...but he
has no fear of using it when it makes sense and can deliver superior
results :)...but do I hear any stories of his work being well behind
schedule because he follows a low-level approach? Nope, never heard a
single complaint at all...and, hey, Abrash happily re-writes entire
libraries, does all that instruction counting stuff and all the
"terrible" things that we're told are "evil" and such...but I do
_know_ that every single Microsoft OS - following the reverse
ideology - comes out late and behind schedule...Windows 95 is a bit of
a lie, really, it would have been more accurate to call it Windows
96...
Language used, in fact, is a variable but, generally, it's a minor one
in comparison to such a big variable as how skilled and experienced a
programmer is and if they are using the language they feel most
comfortable with and there's no forced "programming paradigm" placed
on them that they just can't work well with from some boss who's
convinced they always know better (it happens)...
This is why it's not just programmers who should worry about the
"de-skilling" of programming...making it into a McDonald's "just flip
the burgers every two minutes" type of jobs...it _does_ effect not
just the quality of the end result but it also effects how fast a job
can be done...
Seeing as we're talking food then let's consider our poor "burger
flipper" in comparison to a highly skilled chef...McDonald's keeps the
food "fast" by actually employing many people on a "production
line"...if we took just one of their staff and matched them up to a
highly skilled chef then, in actual fact, the skilled chef will run
absolute rings around them...the poor "burger flipper" is doing one
thing at a time and having big trouble "multi-tasking" (ever done your
own cooking? "Proper" cooking, that is...the grand problem is
"multi-tasking" everything and timing it all to be ready all at the
same time...usually involving a frantic "hands everywhere"
approach...one hand is stirring something, another is trying to flip
something else, your brain is doing all the arithmetic of making sure
the timing will be "just right" so it's all ready at the same time
and, well, you just never have enough available limbs...even the
greatest chefs have the sense to employ kitchen hands to act as "extra
limbs" ;)...the skilled chef, on the other hand, breezes through it
all because, yes, it's _second nature_...in fact, even the TV has
recently realised that watching a skilled chef at work is even
entertaining...as they calmly - arrogantly, in fact, because chefs
tend to be like that - seem to almost "magically" make it all up as
they are going along but it still all comes out 100% perfectly timed
and cooked in the end...when they flip a pancake, it lands absolutely
perfectly back in the pan...what takes everyone else five minutes to
dice up some vegetable, they do in twenty seconds...having special
"techniques" for every occasion which cleverly halves the work that
actually needs to be done...
And when the latest version of Windows is delayed and this ups the
effective wage bill that MS have to pay out to their programmers then
guess where it ulitmately comes from? Yup, the price we all pay for
their software...although, in MS's case, the pricing scheme makes
absolutely no economical sense, anyway (the most popular and most
mass-produced software - Word, Excel, Windows, etc. - costing _more_,
the more copies are sold? That's totally in reverse of the whole
concept of mass-production and making mass-market software...it's
supposed to become _cheaper_ when you do that...shared costs should be
distributed across the whole thing, reducing the "per unit"
price...anyone else smelling a big smelly rat here? ;)...but, anyway,
the basic principle still holds, even if MS act as an exception to
pretty much every rule you can think of (because they have
monopoly...that's changes the situation pretty drastically...in
monopoly, there's no other options so you can charge whatever you
like, happily declaring "like it or lump it"...there's no pressure of
competition forcing you to always attempt to go one better than your
rivals...there's no rivals in monopoly, you see...thus, you can just
sit there as a fat pig - not bothering too hard to improve things -
and charge a price that's daylight robbery...nothing anyone can do
about it, unfortunately...this is actually why monopoly is _counter_
to Capitalism...it's just greedy and ends up ruining "the art" because
no-one cares anymore about "the art" of it all, only the big wads of
cash :)...
So, nevermind this "never use ASM" bullcrap, it's not really looking
at the situation properly...if you want to make your decisions
correctly each and every time, then ignore these cheap, simplistic
absolutisms...that's not really how it works...what you need to do is
make a study into the feasibility of the various options...balance up
some cost-benefit analysis to see what costs bring what benefits and
what's worth doing and what isn't and should be avoided like the
plague...
In short, it might be annoying and inconvenient that it can't actually
all be summed up with a simple "never use ASM" statement...but, sorry,
every case is individual and has to be judged individually...and,
sometimes, it doesn't always follow that finishing the race faster
means you'll win the most fans and prize money...you have to select
your races intelligently - less charity marathons with no prize money
and more professional races backed by big sponsorship deals - if it's
the cash you're after...often, with sporting events, the most famous
races don't actually necessarily net you the biggest prizes...for
instance, you win absolutely no money - only worldwide fame and glory,
as "the fastest person on Earth" - for the most famous race of them
all: the Olympic 100m race...
It's one of the most important "laws" in the infamous "art of
war"...the best fighter is the one who fights the least amount of
battles, not the most...because, with every battle, there is a chance
that you'll lose...reducing these odds to the absolute minimum and
selecting only crucial and important battles to secure an overall
advantage is the way to "win"...sensible gamblers - that actually
regularly win money - follow similar rules...and, for the bookies,
rigging the odds so that they can never lose is the whole point of the
games they play...more "on-topic", people who are optimising their
programs do well to remember that "the fastest code is the code that
never runs"...
Because, as I try to stress, it's actually _quality_ and not quantity
that really counts...fight a million pub brawls and you're just a
"bruiser" and a bully...notorious as a person to simply avoid...win
one fight with the heavyweight boxing champion of the world and
everyone will know your name, you'll be rich with prize money and fees
for interviews and sponsorship, you'll be followed around by
"groupies", everyone will want your autograph and to be in the same
photo as you when you're splashed across the front pages as a role
model and representative to your home nation...was it just one lucky
punch? Maybe...doesn't matter...it wasn't the quantity of the fights,
it was the _quality_...you got that lucky punch _at the right time_
square on the jaw _of the right person_...end of story...you can now
retire as a millionaire in your mansion with all those groupies,
hailed as "the greatest success this country has ever seen!" and such
like...
Unfair? Undeserved? Just plain lucky? Probably...but that's the way
the cookie crumbles...welcome to the world! ;)
Beth :)
Woody
>No, i am *not* considering MASM user base. They do *not* exist.
Really?
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.woodmass/SpecEmu.zip
Okay, it's only a ZX Spectrum emulator but it's programmed using MASM.
Does the MASM user base still not exist?
Betov
news:unt4cvs2oaq1h3jmm...@4ax.com:
Oh! My Goat! *You* *do* *exist*???!!!...
Make decency a favour: Go and die, please.
Betov.
Beth
> Beth wrote:
> >*loud applause*
> >
> >Exactly, exactly...
> >
> >We could take this to the absolute extreme, couldn't we?
> >
> >When a baby is born then we kill them off instantly and go straight
to
> >burying them in a grave...well, you see, we're all going to die one
> >day so this just "saves time, money and effort"...
> >
> >Surely I don't need to stress that such a mentality would be
somewhat
> >missing the point in a very drastic and highly dangerous way?
Saving
> >time, money and effort is NOT the ultimate objective of life...or,
if
> >it was, then merely being alive is totally ruining the whole
> >thing...so should we all just rush off to kill ourselves so that
the
> >"targets" and "objectives" are duely met?
>
> Sorry that I had the nerve to say anything!
Umm, wasn't aimed at you specifically...I was making the general point
that prioritising "saving time, money and effort" over _everything_ is
unwise...prioritising it over cutting your toe nails, though, is
probably acceptable...it's not that "saving time, money and effort" is
"wrong", it's just to point out that it's not some "prime directive of
life itself" either...there are other things...there are more
important things...
So, no, don't get all offended and run off to become a monk or
something...the point is _moderation_ and _balance_...after all, we do
our jobs in order to earn our pay, which, in our leisure time,
"wasting time, money and effort" magically transforms into a Good
Thing...meeting friends and talking about nothing in particular,
spending money on drinking and eating unnecessarily big and nice
meals, buying a ticket to something that's "fun" like a movie or a
concert...it suddenly goes into reverse, in fact...in this context,
it's actually "fun" to waste our time, money and effort on often
pointless, frivilous things...
So to give an example where it's a Bad Thing does not contradict the
fact that it could be a Good Thing elsewhere...my _whole point_ here
is that you balance it up...if you were doing this formally, it would
be one of those cost-benefit analysis things...or you just might
"guess" it all instead (which tends to be more how people do it when
in the context of "leisure time"...not planning how to spend every
penny with formal studies and flow charts but more of a "oh, I think I
can afford that" approach...this can work too, as long as your
intuition about money is good ;)...
So, no, my saying this and giving an extreme example to demonstrate a
case where it's clearly just silly to prioritise "saving time, money
and effort" above everything does not mean that you "have a nerve" to
speak of your context where this isn't the case...if, in your
individual balance, it comes out the other way around then this is
fine...
The point is NOT that it's always wrong or always right...that was
exactly the very thing I was posting to make clear...it's a balance of
costs with benefits and it needs a moderate approach rather than a
"hell for leather" towards one or the other extreme...let's sum it up
simply then: "every case is individual"...that was the point...so, if
in your case it all works out well, more power to you...the warning,
so to speak, is not to think that just because it's wise to use C this
time automatically means it's going to be the best option next time...
The rules here are of the "you must strive to achieve...by the most
appropriate means" form and NOT the "thou shalt..." and "thou shalt
not..." variety..."thou shalt not use C" nor "thou shalt use ASM"
isn't what I'm saying...I'm saying "does the costs and benefits of
this choice deem it as the most appropriate in this individual
case?"...
Note: the answer varies...this is like one of those "what's your
favourite colour?" questions...there is no "always right" or "always
wrong" answer here...for some people, it's blue...for others, it's
green and all that sort of thing...it's a balance and may involve a
judgement call that could go either way...
I showed an extreme example which is clearly "no!"...and, in fact, I
was actually _depending_ on your case and others like it, where it's a
"yes!" answer to demonstrate that either answer is possible...so I
wasn't saying "you're wrong" because I needed your case to be the
counterweight of this extreme "no!" example to show that it really
does hinge both ways at different times...thus, what should be done is
to consider whether "yes" or "no" is best in this individual case and
proceed as is appropriate...
It's more of a "yes _and_ no" question rather than a "yes _or_ no"
question...either way, you'll get a "package" of _both_ positive
benefits and negative costs...both good and bad things...the trick
here is selecting that package which, in this individual case, gets us
more of the good positive benefits we want with the least negative
costs we don't want...despite the claims of some compiler advertisers,
there is no one "package" which only has Good Things and has no Bad
Things...you have to browse and shop around, compare and contrast,
balance it all up...sometimes, C'll clearly win...sometimes, ASM'll
clearly win...sometimes, it could go either way and it becomes a total
personal judgement call - a personal preference - what to go with...
> I understand that 5 MB sources ain't enough to be noticed
> as real work. It's just peanuts...
Oh, please, calm down...I was not making any reference to your work -
which I'm sure is just great and being well developed in your caring,
trustworthy hands...my point (and the points that I was virtually
applauding) was general that there are clear cases where the reverse
call should be made...this is NOT in any way meant to say "you are
wrong"...it's just an example of where the reverse decision makes the
most sense...in your individual case, this same example decision might
be prove to be catastrophically wrong...we're not telling what
decision to make here, the idea is to discuss the variables involved
in such a decision to show that, yeah, sometimes we should lean to C,
sometimes towards ASM, sometimes towards Perl, sometimes towards one,
other, both, all, either or neither and sometimes, let's just call the
whole thing off...
All decisions are capable of being valid answers to this question,
according to context...the thing is not whether you've answered with a
specific "yes" or a specific "no"...it's whether that "yes" or that
"no" actually ties into the context of the question...it's a multiple
choice questionnaire about your personal preference, if you like; Read
the question and decide from the available tick boxes which box is
best to tick...and like real questionnaires of this sort, you might
even want to reply with an option that's not on the form...well, just
tick the box that's closest...what I'm trying to advise not to be done
is just to always tick the first box regardless of what the question
is...if you tick "A" for every question then, yes, sometimes the
answer'll make sense but, also, there'll be answers where it makes no
sense...
The "myth" I'm trying to break here is that there an absolute
"correct" answer for each and every context...there's not...it's just
people who have interests in C dominance going around pretending that
it's always right and can never be a wrong choice serving their own
interests by throwing around these sorts of "C is the best!" or
"compilers always beat ASM!" claims...sometimes, these things _are_
right...but, also, sometimes, these things _are_ wrong...there is no
simple "one size fits all" answer...
Every case is individual and must be treated as such, if you want the
best results :)
I have no doubt that your 5 MB sources are all of a high standard and
such...that was NOT the point in any way, shape or form to suggest
that they weren't...I, in fact, have no idea whatsoever - as I don't
know what the sources are for nor what the facts of the situation
that's being addressed are - what the "right" answer is...and, to be
honest, though there are some clear "facts", there are also times when
it's nothing but a personal judgement call and nothing else...that
_either_ answer is acceptable...
Making feasibility studies and calculating cost-benefit analyses is
all about making that call correctly by judging the variables in that
individual case...
> Of course - it saves a lot of time to valuate others work
> and make funny jokes about, _without_ having a look at it
> or even waste a second to remember, _how_ many spare time
> they have.
Actually, no, I wasn't doing that...and, no, it actually would be a
complete _waste_ of time to do such a thing...I have not and will not
ever make any judgements about something that I've no experience in
whatsoever...I'm perfectly happy in such cases to just admit "sorry, I
can't tell you...never seen it" because there's no shame in not being
universally omnipotent...for example, I've not assessed FASM yet and,
appropriately, you'll notice that - other than to name it as an
assembler in any "list of assemblers" - I never mention it at all...or
clearly put "I can't comment on FASM, not used it yet"...
So, please, don't feel in any way offended by my comments...they
weren't directed at you specifically and, anyway, they weren't saying
"it's wrong" regardless...they were saying "it could be right or
wrong...these things hinge both ways...Bernhard has made the case for
a 'yes' vote...so, just to show that it can also be appropriate to
cast a 'no' vote, here's a clear example where the vote should be
'no'"...the existence of the possibility of a "no" vote here does not
mean that "yes" isn't the right vote to cast in your context...
> Keep laughing about somebody who spends every free minute
> to transform his ideas into working code.
I was not laughing and I was not insulting your efforts in the
slightest and I was not saying you were "wrong" or anything stupid
like that...if you are spending every free minute transforming your
ideas into working code then, quite the reverse, you have my full
support and I salute you, sir! *salute* :)
Hopefully, though, you now understand that I wasn't saying what you
might have misunderstood me to be saying...I'm _exactly_ NOT saying
"right" or "wrong" here, I'm saying "it depends"...balance up those
pros and those cons and see what answer you get...note that I write
plenty of HLL _and_ ASM code...and I will select _either_, according
to what is appropriate...though, granted, I _prefer_ ASM usually that,
all other things being equal, I'll lean that way...also, if it's a
"leisure time pursuit" then, yeah, I might select ASM just for the
hell of it, even if C would have got it all done much faster...but, at
the same time, if something else wins then something else wins :)
> You have made one point - have fun with it!
Yup, have fun with it all...there are no "suffered silenty in great
pain and torture" Nobel prizes so there's no point competing for
one...hehehe ;)
Beth :)
Betov
> On 14 May 2003 09:57:37 GMT, Betov <be...@free.fr> wrote:
Hi! Anonymous. Mail received. So, i may guess you did not yet suicide...
Arghhh!...
Betov.
bv_schornak
>>Thus - it is ethical to take a lot and give nothing back?
>>
>>
>
>If there are no conditions on the stuff, or if you live up to the
>conditions attached to the stuff you take, it's completely ethical.
>Consider the GPL stuff - there is no ethical compulsion for any
>user to contribute back to the community. Indeed, the license
>explicitly states that it's okay to make modifications and refuse
>to give those modifications back to the community *as long as you
>don't distribute the binary form of the stuff*.
>
[original message]
>> My philosophy is the "pool of mental wealth" - I've taken
>> so much out of it (as everybody else did), so it is up to
>> me to give something back. May it be a song or a program,
>> an algorithm or a chemical formula - everybody is able to
>> give something in return - to share our _real_ wealth! It
>> has nothing to do with material riches - it is worth much
>> more than anybody could ever pay...
>
As you may see - it is not specific to programming. There
are so many other things you may give in return for these
nice little programs you have installed on your computer.
If you see a person carry a heavy weight - help carrying.
If a child asks you something - answer in a way it may be
able to learn. If somebody needs help in any way, give it
without questioning what you will get in return.
There's much more behind my philosophy than programming -
it is a way to live, not just some nice words without any
meaning, also known as "blah blah blah"...
[microsoft]
>Why is Microsoft's right to sell their software any less than, say,
>GM's right to sell cars? Just because it's a whole lot easier and
>cheaper to rip off software rather than rip off a car doesn't mean
>that Microsoft doesn't deserve the right to sell their stuff.
>
>Does GM give away all the engineering plans for their vehicles?
>Do they relax all their patents so their competitors can use them?
>
Your picture stinks. There (at least in Europe) is a good
mix of cars of _different_ brands. In your example, it is
as follows - out of one million cars there are:
960,000 GM
30,000 BMW
10,000 other brands...
And GM didn't sell the most of the stuff to the customers
the direct way, it "came along" with the box of cereals a
good citicen buys for his breakfast...
If you compare monopolies - then a comparison to the OPEC
would hit the nail much better. Like Microsoft, they have
complete _control_ over the market!
>>Yes, yes, how could I ever have one bad thought about the
>>most selfless and charitable organisation in the world? I
>>immediately will throw away all the stuff I've ever coded
>>and wipe my HDs. Who am I - to make one of those holy men
>>unemployed? And - of course - I will throw away the Linux
>>and OS/2 systems, too. What an evil software. Instead - I
>>will purchase (at least) _one_ copy of Microsoft's latest
>>OS each month, so they don't have to starve...
>>
>
>Sorta like GM wanting us to replace our cars every three years
>so they don't starve?
>
See above. If GM would hold 96% of the market, they would
produce cars which are _junk_ after 2 years, for sure. As
long as there are competitors, they can't do it...
- - -
It is foreseeable, that we cannot reach a common point in
the discussion about Microsoft and commercial software...
There are worlds between us, and you will not convince me
with your beliefs, nor is it my intention to convince any
person with mine - we should end this part of our discus-
sion here. I think we waste time which might be of use in
other fields.
- - -
>BTW, *who* was it that originally wrote OS/2?
>
How many lines of this code still are in use? You're tal-
king about OS/2 1.x., meanwhile there's WARP 4.52 or eCS!
Not much of the original left in there - maybe one of the
reasons why OS/2 still is the most stable OS around...
>>Port it to OS/2, then we may talk about the reasons why I
>>should replace my GAS with it. If you have good reasons -
>>then I would consider to _port_ the current version of my
>>system (about 2 MB sources) to iNTEL syntax...
>>
>>
>
>As you've said (or somebody around here said),
> there seems to be only one OS/2 user out there who is
>interested in assembly under OS/2. I might have been interested
>in such a project 10 years ago, but not now. Heck, I gave up
>on BeOS two years ago for this same reason and there's probably
>a lot more interest in a BeOS version than OS/2.
>
It was a rethoric statement. Even I know, that OS/2 defi-
nitely is dead. But as long as the community is alive, it
is my platform. And it does not seem, that it dies within
the next 5 or 10 years. And I would not bother anybody to
port stuff to OS/2 - what there's _needed_ will be ported
by our community, not by the Linux or Windows developers!
Nevertheless, I might be the only fighter _pro_ assembler
in this community...
BTW - there are still much more OS/2 users than BeOS ever
may have had. WARP 3 sold more than 1,000,000 copies here
in Germany within 1/2 year - and _some_ of them still are
in use!
>>The quoted snippet _is_ the "if then else" version of the
>>switch statement with jumptable.
>>
>
>That you were complaining about as a rotten way to do things
>in assembler (versus C). I was just pointing out that you don't have
>to do it that way in assembly.
>
Hey, come on - you're not talking to a novice programmer.
Even if I do not claim to write good assembler code, I've
enough experience that I do know what I'm talking about -
and again: I'm not speaking against the use of it, I just
give some alternative ways to write modern applications.
The most important thing for OS/2 are applications - if I
give the programmers a toolbox to do this in shorter time
then the entire community will have a benefit! Just face,
that reality beats our imagination...
>>I don't get your point, why you try to convince an assem-
>>bler programmer to use assembler - I already do that, and
>>there's enough stuff to prove my words...
>>
>
>Unless I've confused your quote, you said there was no
>reason to use assembly because the C compiler generated
>better code than the assembly programmer. I was just pointing
>out the expense of mixing C and Assembly as your post suggested doing.
>Maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say.
>
A C compiler might produce equivalent code to handwritten
and optimized assembler code. If you write spaghetticode,
it is of no importance which language you use, and modern
C compilers beat "bad" assembler code with ease - it also
depends on the quality of the source code, which language
will make the best figure.
And as you may have seen, I'm able to write this stuff in
assembler - so it is not the question of skill. It's just
a decision to save some time. And as told somewhere else,
while I don't feel bound to the dogma of some purists, no
one _has_ to follow my way - I'm not _preaching_ it...
All programmers who want to write an entire multithreaded
application with multiple windows, dialogs, notebooks and
stuff in pure assembler _should_ do it - they always will
have my respect for this enormous achievement! But - I am
still waiting for the example of a working windows appli-
cation written in pure assembler. This link Jeff and Beth
gave me led to a total stall of my PC - one of the seldom
cases this ever happened. Ok - Windows applications trend
to hang up, but only a few ever crashed my entire machine
including the reset button. A real good advertisement pro
applications written in assembler... BTW, my apps _never_
crashed, at least - there were no complaints!
>>And it is my decision - if I chose the most efficient way
>>between code quality and the time I have to spend - where
>>is the judge who will sentence me to use assembler, only?
>>
>
>But when you argue that one scheme is more efficient than another
>and then adopt a programming style that is arguably worse than either,
>it's a tough defense. It's sort of like Rene arguing against the use
>of the high level control structures in an assembler like MASM or
>HLA and then turning around and writing macros to let him use
>..if ..if ...if ....etc. in his SpAsm sources. There's just something
>inconsistent about the argument.
>
Where did I say it is more efficient? Probably a mistake,
saving time is not related to efficiency. This concept is
a _compromise_ between saving time and producing the most
_possible_ efficiency. It can't beat code written in pure
assembler. But - if you _develop_ your position, then you
need an OS which also is written in pure assembler, which
uses jumps instead of calls, et cetera.
Of course, we can write such a thing, but where is it? Do
you know _one_ project of a halfway working OS written in
pure assembler and requiring the use of pure assembler to
write applications for it? Where is it?
Maybe I should have put it in quotes, as you did...
"Stealing" just was meant as "adopting" ideas or melodies
of others, modify it a little bit, then sell it. There is
no "creativity" in it. It's just gathering the good stuff
and mix it together, for commercial use in the production
lines. This has nothing to do with art, it is business at
its best, a commercial perversion of art.
It is plagiarism in the limitations of the laws - you may
take a limited amount of notes in a melody without viola-
ting the copyright. Record companies work with a staff of
people who only are busy with this kind of "recycling".
The book thing is a very different field - as long as you
don't copy the text or the storyline, there's nothing bad
about it (except the horror prices they demand).
>>Maybe there was life BM (before Microsoft)? Where a poor,
>>but smart engineer invented the "Dirty Operating System"?
>>And it wasn't the _first_ OS, of course. Even Konrad Zuse
>>hasn't invented the operating system. So - who's the real
>>_owner_ of this idea?
>>
>>
>
>BM, by the way, was the day of IBM. You know, those guys
>who were the last ones to work on OS/2? They were the detestible
>"Big Brother, monopolistic, capitalist pigs" corporation that everybody
>loved to hate before Microsoft came along. The U.S. Justice Department
>actually won some significant cases against them.
>
Right. I knew that and never said anything different! ;)
>>Where we stumble upon another interesting point. It's the
>>_proprietary_ software. Even if Microsoft has patents and
>>patents and even more patents - many not even invented by
>>Microsoft, they got them together with the companies they
>>purchased for a warm meal (after they "destroyed" them on
>>the market with aggressive marketing strategies) - one of
>>the things they will never get is the "right to copyright
>>everything"! There still are a few laws left - which deny
>>them to copyright the air we breathe, water in the oceans
>>or the "look and feel" of software.
>>
>
>Yeah! Just like IBM did!
>Why does that make OS/2 better than Windows?
>
Like I would buy a BMW rather than a Mercedes, I did like
OS/2 much more than Windows. And until today, nothing has
changed my mind. If Linux gets a little bit more "adult",
I will start porting my stuff to that OS...
>>Copyrights come in two flavours: The 1st, like Microsoft,
>>want to deny _people_ to _use_ software for free. The 2nd
>>(like me) put a copyright on their software to deny those
>>_companies_ like Microsoft to take free software and make
>>it _proprietary_. I don't write my stuff to supply others
>>with an easy way to make money - I want to support _poor_
>>people with software they could not afford, if they would
>>have to buy it.
>>
>
>As long as you make your software freely available, those _poor_
>people will still be able to use it for free, regardless of what rich
>companies do with it. Were you to place your software in the
>public domain, for example, MS could legitimately take your software,
>modify it, and get rich(er) off of it. But they couldn't stop those poor
>people from continuing to use the software that you wrote.
>
Am I the money giving cow of other people? It still is my
work, and it intentionally isn't thought to make _anyone_
rich!
Would be like a wall belonging to the public, where every
person is allowed to paint graffitis onto it - what would
you say, if some fine day a company _cuts_ some graffitis
out of the wall and sells them? Is that ok? Taking public
belongings and sell it?
What kind of moral should this become if it's ready?
>IMHO, this whole "freeware" copyright issue boils down to
>exactly what you said: people are afraid someone else will make
>some money off their work. Personally, I find that attitude inethical.
>"Gee, if I can't make any money off of this, I want to make sure that
>no one else does either." Engineers, especially software engineers
>generally have no clue what it takes to make money off a product.
>They somehow feel that most of the effort, time, and money, goes into
>the development of a piece of software. This simply isn't true.
>My attitude is that if someone wants to take a piece of free software
>and risk their money marketing the stuff, more power to them.
>If they are wildly successful, then the original author gets to see even
>more of his software in use around the world (and ego gratification
>is 90% of the reason people write free software anyway, so this provides
>even more "payment", in the form of ego gratification, to the author).
>And if someone is getting filthy rich off some piece of free software, how
>long do you think it will be before the purchasing public finds out and there
>is a negative backlash? Even if the company adds value to the software,
>how long do you think it would be before hackers were reverse engineering
>those features (or ones like them) into the free version?
>
Nope, strict and clear! It's not "I cannot make any money
out of it", it's I do not _want_ to make any money out of
it! (!!!)
If you can't respect, that there are people out there who
do not want to _earn_ something with their stuff, then it
is useless to discuss this further...
See, this software belongs to every human on this planet,
and it is a very sad thing, that we have to protect it in
any way at all...
>>Nothing wrong with modified code - needs a portion of own
>>creativity as well as to write the original - better call
>>it improvement, which hits the spot. But again: The topic
>>was about commercial stuff, not about the development and
>>evolution of free software...
>>
>>And in the commercial field, there's a lot of "stealing",
>>no one respects the work of others. "Take it as it comes,
>>put a new logo on it and sell it!" Profit counts, not the
>>"creativity" of the _product_...
>>
>>
>
>I'm not sure I follow.
>Are you talking about people like Red Hat?
>
Who's Red Hat? Another commercial company...
>Or about companies that buy up other companies to resell their products?
>If it's the latter, I can think of so many outfits that this happened to, but would
>have gone bankrupt and the software would have disappeared forever had some
>company not bought them out. The owners of that software got some value for
>their investment that they would not have gotten otherwise.
>
Ok, that's the point: _Ownership_ of something. Maybe you
will not understand, that money means _nothing_ to me. In
the last 20 years I've lost _everything_ I had two times.
Was my damned own fault, but I can tell you, that all the
material things I've lost mean nothing - the only thing I
have in mind are my _mental_ belongings which were stored
on some media. That are the only things I'm missing - all
the material stuff is crap, nothing else. Every human can
survive without money, but without brain - you will die!
nos...@scinq.org
<whittle>
> In short...
I don't think you're allowed to use that phrase :)
Ross Simpson
Hi Beth,
<snip!>
> Our Civil Liberties?!? Are you mad?!? There's a "threat" out
> there...an "evil", which is very "evil" because it's pure
> "evil"...thinking "evil", doing "evil" (have I scared you enough yet?
> Or should I repeat "evil" - without any evidence or qualification as
> to why we, apparently, have satan hounding us - a few hundred more
> times in all the media everywhere?)...a "threat" that will damage our
> Liberty, which we need to protect...so how can you be worrying about
> Liberty when there's Liberty at stake?
<snip!>
I'll be even more off-topic here & just mention how evil Darth
Vader was in the original Star Wars (1977). It's just a pity no-ones
like that in real life!
Regards,
Ross.
Annie
On 2003-05-12 BethS...@hotmail.com said:
> ..."The CIA created and funded Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida? The
> bin Laden family and the Bush family are both part of the Carlyle
> Group, conveniently profitting from this all (its chairman
> conveniently Prime Minister of Britain when the last Gulf War
> happened and, also, Bush snr. is part of it...well, well, well...
> how interesting that all the warmongers for both wars are part of
> an organisation that profits from it all...will Blair be joining
> the Carlyle Group when his political career is over too?...
_____
Yep...it's just as I suspected: ((( `\
you ARE hanging out on those _ _`\ )
wacko-leftist web sites. I know (^ ) )
this because that's the only ~-( )
place where the proposterous _'((,,,)))
"Carlyle Group" conspiracy theory ,-' \_/ `\
is being disseminated. ( , |
`-.-'`-.-'/|_|
Of course, socialists and commu- \ / | |
nists have never been very good =()=: / ,' aa
at economics. When this "conspiracy"
is analyzed in economic terms, it makes absolutely NO
sense whatsoever. But then, the left assumes that
you're as ignorant about economics as THEY are.
Get a grip, Beth. You're becoming nuttier by the week.
I'm REALLY starting to worry about you.
Geez, I liked it a lot better when your major concern
was going to the neighborhood discotheque, and maybe
picking up a guy once in a while. At least that was
fairly normal. What the heck happened?
You're off your medication again, aren't you. Hehehe!
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Woody
>Hi! Anonymous.
Check the headers...
> Mail received.
How clever. None sent.
> So, i may guess you did not yet suicide...
This is just about the most retarded reply I've ever seen in Usenet
when somebody's choice of assembler differs from your own...
So rather than trying to constantly improve your product, you prefer
to trash the alternative products and their users?
You'll go a long way!
Beth
> Beth wrote:
> <whittle>
> > In short...
>
> I don't think you're allowed to use that phrase :)
I say it proverbially and as a relative measurement, of course...I
could perhaps say "in summary" or "in synopsis" instead but, well,
that just completely pretenious to my ear...mind you, "proverbially"
sounds highly pretenious too but there's no other way to say that
properly without using "long words" so it'll have to do, lacking a
reasonable alternative...
Oh well, if all my words are "rant", "whittle" and so forth
(adjectives so far used to describe snips) then perhaps I could always
take up sewing, cooking, cleaning and other "respectable female
pursuits" in order to please m'lords and masters instead...patronising
gits...
Beth :)
Beth
> Perhaps you should figure out first, to whom you're replying,
> then post the reply to the appropriate person?
Actually, I think he does...he does have a passage that is
specifically addressed to rene but it's under what rene said...when he
gets to what you say, Bernhard, he reverts to saying "rene" in the
third person and things like "I know you're anti-Windows like
rene"...you're an OS/2 man and state you have a policy of not feeding
those you disagree with, like Microsoft...so, yes, I think Randy - by
this point - was definitely addressing you, Bernhard...
I think Randy was trying to answer two posts in one by replying to you
but also slipping in a reply to rene's quotation in your post
too...that was probably not wise because, yes, when I first read over
it, I was confused by how he switches who he's talking to half-way
through without any signal that he's doing it...but read further down
the post, Bernhard, and the stuff under rene's quote and reply _is_
addressed to you...
Beth :)
Beth
> Rene wrote:
> > So, i may guess you did not yet suicide...
>
> This is just about the most retarded reply I've ever seen in Usenet
> when somebody's choice of assembler differs from your own...
>
> So rather than trying to constantly improve your product, you prefer
> to trash the alternative products and their users?
This, of course, rene is where I childishly repeat, "I told you so! I
told you so!" until you explode...but, well, it's true...I warned you
specifically that this actually only succeeds in driving people _away_
from SpAsm...and, also, by the way, your specific programming
philosophy and tarnishes the name of "assembly rebirth" for everyone
involved in trying to work slowly towards bringing it...great, just
great...well, if I want something un-advertised so that people run
away rather than towards, then I'll know exactly who to call...you're
your own worst nightmare, rene...
And, also, on a serious note...please don't talk about suicide and
death so lightly just to "score points"...potentially, someone could
be greiving a loss of a close relative through suicide or an untimely
death by illness or something...and might even have thought that there
might be "sanctuary" and "escape" from an overwhelming grief to become
occupied in something else, like this group...that's traumatic enough
experience without crass unthinking comments thrown about, which you
can't seriously mean in a literal sense...and if you're seriously
calling for death because of such trivial disagreements then you have
a serious problem there...
Plus, as I've tried to point out before, if you claim the philosophies
you say you do then you're actually violating pretty much the whole
thing by insisting on gruesome death for anyone who even mildly
disagrees with your Pope-like "infallible" opinion...sorry, but that
would make you represent a far, far, far worse threat to humanity than
MS because you're not even recognising the basic fundamentals of
humanity...as you know, I have no Love lost between myself and the
practices of greedy bastards like M$ but when you enter this "fire and
brimstone" mood, you come across so badly, even M$ start to look
"angelic" in comparison...
Woody puts it best:
> You'll go a long way!
NOT!
(Though, of course, that's the basic underlying problem here...you
_could_ go an incredibly long way - ability, determination, passion,
etc. are all present - but you let your rage consume you all too
easily, the short fuse blows and it renders all that other stuff quite
useless because the "fire and brimstone" mood comes into force,
declaring death and pain upon everyone...there's a U2 song that has
"ambition bites the nails of success" (which tends to be _my_
problem...too much dreaming and over-thinking, spending all my time
doing that that I forget to actually put the ideas into concrete
practice ;)...but, in your case, it's more "passion bites the nails of
success"...your rage drives you and, in a sense, that _could_ be good
if you disciplined it and channelled it into something useful and
constructive...but it just diffuses out into ether as "die! die! die!"
and all the energy is wasted...and, as you know, I'm always concern
with energy waste of all types :)...
Beth ;)
Beth
> Beth wrote:
> > ..."The CIA created and funded Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida? The
> > bin Laden family and the Bush family are both part of the Carlyle
> > Group, conveniently profitting from this all (its chairman
> > conveniently Prime Minister of Britain when the last Gulf War
> > happened and, also, Bush snr. is part of it...well, well, well...
> > how interesting that all the warmongers for both wars are part of
> > an organisation that profits from it all...will Blair be joining
> > the Carlyle Group when his political career is over too?...
>
> wacko-leftist web sites.
Well, _only_ after your "recommendations"...I was telling the truth
that I'd never visited any such site (save, as I say, the Greenpeace
site but that was to look for information about solar panels for a
discussion about that and they seem an obvious starting point to get
the "green" view of this :)...
But, well, when you urged caution and restraint not to go anywhere
near such sites, that acted as a big "do not push" sign hovering over
a big red button...everyone else may be fooled by your "pretend to be
casual and flippant about this all" but I know you've got an agenda
here...because, for instance, you delibrately seek out my posts in
order to post something totally non-useful and merely insulting about
me, as a "reputation ruiner" that my posts won't appear in any thread
without a "you're a nutter, Beth" reply attached to it (taking such
effort to discredit me that you're starting to undo the accusations of
your own accord...after all, if I'm "just a nutter off her medication"
then why take such pains to mount a "discredit Beth"
campaign)...recently, I've started to have reason to _be_ paranoid
about this, as you're _only_ bothering to seek me out to add your
"nutter" comments...I Hope this isn't a Bush-like "Crusade" or
something, Annie...
I know you'll probably try another one of your "casual and flippant"
replies, as if it's no skin off your back and "clearly" I'm being
paranoid to suggest these things...but I'm on the receiving end and,
yes, have been looking out for any of your replies here to notice a
clear and obvious pattern...you've broken three such attempts and that
puts you beyond the "degrees of freedom" for this to be pure
chance...it's now a pattern...and, watch, because these things _are_
verifiable in the archives to see that, though there may be no clear
evidence, there's certainly a point to my observation of a clear
pattern in your choice of who and how to reply...from she who
flippantly says "get over it!"...the irony there is highly amusing, as
you appear to be the one running around with a grudge against me you
just won't drop...
> I know this because that's the only place where the proposterous
> "Carlyle Group" conspiracy theory is being disseminated.
Actually, I saw some general media references and "denial" apologist
sites too, protesting too much...
> Of course, socialists and communists have never been very good
> at economics.
Well, it's a false characterisation - which is typical of you - so the
argument is non-applicable...I'm certainly no communist and any
socialist tendencies are humanitarian and based on open-minded
appraisal of all possibilities on a case by case basis...I advocate
socialist medicine but no bloody way should it go near commercial
interests...plus, I do know my maths very well, Annie...and, sorry,
because - though it never got off the ground properly - I've done
business courses and such...not just the "academic" variety in schools
and universities but a practical one offered as part of a government
initiative to help _start up companies_...because I intended, and if
my personal situation improves to make it a feasible possibility
again, I still intend to exactly become a card-carrying Capitalist
myself...because, further than even your right-wing creditials allow,
I've openly stated how trade has been and is the very foundation of
civilisation itself...I'm totally all for it...it's, in fact, those
who rape the terms "Capitalism" and "Liberty" to disguise quite the
opposite that forces me to be so outspoken against this _fraud_ to let
people recognise it for the _lie_ that it is...this is not Capitalism
at all we're seeing..._competition_ is crucial to the philosophy of
Capitalism but, yet, we speak of monopolistic powers all merging into
one "superpower"...they represent Capitalism's worst nightmare but
because people just immediately swallow their "we're Capitalists,
honest" fraud, it is made to blame for things that are in complete
violation of its principles...
> When this "conspiracy" is analyzed in economic terms, it makes
> absolutely NO sense whatsoever. But then, the left assumes
> that you're as ignorant about economics as THEY are.
Really? Okay, then, you've peaked my interest..._elaborate_ the hows
and whys to me and I'm open to be shown the error of my ways...you
must have clear and logical reasons for making this statement...so it
should be absolutely no trouble for you to simply jot down - even if
only in brief - these reasons for us all to see how it's all wildly
inaccurate...put your mouth where your money is...
_Explain_, _demonstrate_, _elaborate_...in summary, put up or shut
up...
> Get a grip, Beth. You're becoming nuttier by the week. I'm REALLY
> starting to worry about you.
Yeah, yeah...old news...tried this cheap strategy before and it didn't
work...no-one's going to buy the sudden overnight development of
compassion and empathy that you actually "worry" or "care" about a
poor "leftist" like myself...and it's sooo hollow, shallow and cheap
to resort to quite unsubstantiated "you're on medication" attempts at
ruining someone's reputation...I've seen 9 year olds on schoolyards
with infinitely better and more mature strategies than "ooh, you're
mad", "don't forget your pills" and other pathetic attempts at
reputation-ruining witicisms and retort...
Plus, I made the jokes before you as a pre-emptive strike so, I
guarantee you, they don't have the impact you intend...and, further,
it simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny because, though long-winded
perhaps, I provide justifications and explanations for nigh-on
everything I say - all following logical, reasonable criteria that is
"open" for all to follow and assess at their leisure - that, simply,
this "insanity" accusation just doesn't ring true in contrast to the
open and perfectly coherent reasoning I always present...
In juxtaposition, you retort with cheap soundbites like "take your
medication" or "you're a nutter" and no substance of any kind to even
remotely back up a single one of your claims...when I finally managed
to get you to present your case in an earlier thread, it was very
revealing because your "evidence" was entirely made-up and
imaginary...you created charts that are of your own misinformed
invention...designed, clearly, to "prove" your case by rigging these
"charts" to read as if there was some sort of agreed consensus on your
opinion in the wider world...none of which was true...
You laid claim to great knowledge of political systems and then make
such a fundamental misinformed mistake as to list "anarchy" as a
political system, when it's actually a philosophy of exactly
revolution _against_ any and all political systems...it's a name for
the _absence_ of political systems and to call it a political system
is to contradict its entire philosophy in one stroke...it's an error
even a "rookie" in politics would not make...even punk rockers
rebelling understand what the "anarchy" they call for entails better
than your middle-class media-driven ignorance has graced you
with...remember the "television is the drug of the nation" song lyrics
I quoted, go check them out again...they describe you to a tee in
their generic insult of that which makes America shamed...
Anyone can insult anyone else...that's easy...but if you don't come up
with the goods then they won't stick, as my posts themselves
demonstrate the lack of substance to your claims without any real need
to address the attempts to ruin my reputation directly...keep it up
and just like my prediction that rene's continual outbursts of rage do
him no credit, we'll eventually see these predictions of how this
"broken record" approach you're employing will just backfire on
you...it's already coming very close to looking like obvious "sour
grapes" and you're carrying a grudge that I publicly exposed your
fraud that you had any sort of political comprehension...keep this up
and you'll only serve to cement that opinion generally, making any and
all comments you aim at me in this context look like more of the same
"sour grapes"...backfiring and making _you_ look like the "nutter" who
can't "get over it" rather than me, who's happily dropped the subject
and am just waiting for you to do the same...
> Geez, I liked it a lot better when your major concern was going
> to the neighborhood discotheque, and maybe picking up a guy once
> in a while.
Ooh, you wouldn't be so pathetic as to attempt such a desparate tactic
as some sort of hidden "drunken slut" accusations by this, would you?
Literally a case of trying to ruin my reputation...
Again, it just ain't going to work from miss "ASCII art of me in bed
and naked" (you've stopped short of some pornographic "bent over"
position but I'm sure it'll be coming some day soon)...nice tries, one
and all, but you're really just no good at this whatsoever, are you?
You once told the Scriptkid that he shouldn't even try to outwit me
because I'm just "way out of his league" and would walk all over
him...well, honey, I do believe you're overestimating your abilities
if you think you'll fair any better...take your own advice and walk
away then I'll happily be merciful to let it go with no further
word...
Your attempts at reputation ruining slurs are as transparent and as
lacking in tangible substance as the air all around us...except air is
useful, you're just becoming a little boring with all this "broken
record" stuff...to ask your question, "what the heck happened?"...you
showed up displaying this whole "life and soul of the party" personna,
which seems to now be "bitter and twisted, sniping petty vengence at
any availble opportunity quickly from the shadows"...
> At least that was fairly normal. What the heck happened?
I dared to contradict you...I dared to expose your made-up "charts",
exposing the fraud of your claimed expertise in such matters...I've
dared to further expose the shallow petty vengence that inhabits
nigh-on every single one of your comments to me...I _never_ once
bought into this whole misogynistic how-I'd-like-women-to-be personna
and, from the first post, openly spoke my mind on that...
Those who know my posts now and then will note no substantial change
of any great significance...they were long, are long and always will
be long...nothing actually "happened" there...what "happened" is that
you showed up trying to coax some more "effeminate" stance from me to
suit your whole chained-to-the-sink-looking-pretty psychology of
women...I never bought the shallowness of it all, you looked a little
silly...and you've been sniping for cheap, petty revenge ever since
when replying to me...but, sorry, Scriptkid's latest post shows how
completely ineffectual these strategies have been...because he can
tell a fraud as well as I can...happy and smiley? More like bitter and
twisted...however you choose to portray yourself in ASCII, your true
face appears in the actual words...
> You're off your medication again, aren't you. Hehehe!
Why, yes, because "your lot" have commercialised the medical
profession, abandoning a social duty of care to those who are
financially disadvantaged, merely to lower your personal tax burden,
which you then go and waste on the environmental destruction of
driving your lazy arse all of two blocks to get to the local
store...due to this, I'm unable to afford my medication and,
regrettably, must suffer the consequences of a society that neither
exists nor has any duty of care...you may pass my frozen corpse on the
street and walk on by thinking "yet another wino that we should have
exterminated at birth" or some similar intolerance that plagues your
heart...
Were I on medication, it would hardly be a matter to giggle
about...and were I not, then the statement is clearly just another
vain attempt at trying to discredit me...the constant repetition of
this fabrication, a beginner's attempts at "brain-washing" your
accusations into everyone else's heads by attaching the same old, same
old in reply to any instance of a post that I make...
All in all...quite, quite sad that you've nothing better to be doing,
really...
Beth :)
Randall Hyde
"> Bernhard wrote:
> > See it this way: There is only _one_ C++ standard, which
> > is kept high by all C++ compilers. And there is no fight
> > like we have it in the assembler range! If this would be
> > the case, C++ wouldn't be the current #1 for development
> > environments!
Hmmm...
Guess that's why my Borland C++, GCC, and VC++ programs
all cross-compile so well... (I'm being facetious here).
Actually, I can't even get a Gas program under Linux to compile
under Gas on QNX (i.e., the HLA compiler output from Bison).
If only it were standard!
OTOH, what would be the use of have a dozen different MASM
clones? Sure, a free one would be nice. But the cool thing about
assembly language is exactly that it is *not* standardized. This gives
us the ability to quit copying somebody else's work and develop
something truly novel. I seem to recall you felt that this process
was a good idea.
From the user's perspective, you get assemblers that are simple
(and don't require as much effort to learn) like FASM, or assemblers
that are complex and powerful like MASM and HLA. The end user
can pick which way they want to go based on how much effort they
want to put into learning the assembler versus how much effort they
will have to put into using it down the road.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
bv_schornak
> From the user's perspective, you get assemblers that are simple
> (and don't require as much effort to learn) like FASM, or assemblers
> that are complex and powerful like MASM and HLA. The end user
> can pick which way they want to go based on how much effort they
> want to put into learning the assembler versus how much effort they
> will have to put into using it down the road.
Or assemblers which _really_ are very easy to learn and
to use and available on every platform - like GAS? ;)
Betov
Annie, as these are typical US citizen ideas, i suppose you
*are* from US...
For point one, here, in Europe, we don't have to go wacko,
for being informed with what is going on in the world. As
opposed to the US journalists, here journalists are yet
allowed to do their job and, when they know it, to tell
people the truth (more or less, brightly or not, but, well,
we have not yet seen here, a journalist *not* providing an
information, in fear of loosing his job -Though i suppose
you don't even know what i am making allusion to...-).
As, for once, *i* did not started a totally out of thread
subject, mind you, seen from Europe and from all other
countries in the world, US is now, clearly, a country of
of un-cultured nazzi.
As nobody on earth will be able to destroy you, like you
and russians did with german Nazzi, you will have to do this
by yourself, and given what we see now, with US economy, and
with your stupid agression against the arabian countries, you
are on the proper road to your own destruction. Go ahead.
For point two, i would not really defend left wing politicians
as i stand somewhere between Anarcho-Syndicalism and Synarchy,
but, all i can say, at best, is that here, in Europe, we *do*
have left wing parties (as opposed to US). Now, each time we
have a left wing governement, the economical situation tends
to *improves*. When we have a right wing governement, the
question is never: "Will they do worst or better?", but "How
long will it take before the destroy the economy?".
Take care: US futur is *dark*. Roma also had an end.
Betov.
Brent
"bv_schornak" wrote:
[snip]
> See it this way: There is only _one_ C++ standard, which
> is kept high by all C++ compilers. And there is no fight
> like we have it in the assembler range! If this would be
> the case, C++ wouldn't be the current #1 for development
> environments!
Do you really want me to do a text search/count for the string "Microsoft
specific" in my VC docs? :)
BTW there is a standard for assembly, and it's called "whatever masm wont
choke on". As much as you, me or anyone else mightn't like it, I'd still be
willing to bet that 90%+ of the x86 assembly code ever written was assembled
with masm, and that the same will hold true until we're all debating which
is the best 64-bit assembler.
regards,
-Brent
doomsday AT optusnet DOT com DOT au
bv_schornak
>>See it this way: There is only _one_ C++ standard, which
>>is kept high by all C++ compilers. And there is no fight
>>like we have it in the assembler range! If this would be
>>the case, C++ wouldn't be the current #1 for development
>>environments!
>>
>>
>
>Do you really want me to do a text search/count for the string "Microsoft
>specific" in my VC docs? :)
>
Not really, save your time for more important things! :)
GCC wouldn't support proprietary extensions, and I don't
use C++ at all...
>BTW there is a standard for assembly, and it's called "whatever masm wont
>choke on". As much as you, me or anyone else mightn't like it, I'd still be
>willing to bet that 90%+ of the x86 assembly code ever written was assembled
>with masm, and that the same will hold true until we're all debating which
>is the best 64-bit assembler.
>
Hmm... I use AT&T syntax - wouldn't make MASM happy. For
DOS (until I changed to OS/2) I used A86 - not the first
choice in MASM's list, either.
Since GCC produces output for GAS, and GAS compiles this
into executables or object files, I would bet, that MASM
was not used for compiling in more than 10 % of all code
"written" in assembler... ;)
Is there already an attempt to write a 64 bit assembler?
Would be _time_ to get one. Or learn AT&T syntax, GAS is
probably coded by now, and AMD's Opteron is on the run.
Randall Hyde
"bv_schornak" <now...@schornak.de> wrote in message news:b9v9mk$fn$05$1...@news.t-online.com...
> Randall Hyde wrote:
> Or assemblers which _really_ are very easy to learn and
> to use and available on every platform - like GAS? ;)
You mean OS/2?
Well, MASM is available there (last I checked).
HLA runs on Linux and will wind up on QNX and BSD before too much longer.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
bv_schornak
>>Or assemblers which _really_ are very easy to learn and
>>to use and available on every platform - like GAS? ;)
>>
>
>You mean OS/2?
>Well, MASM is available there (last I checked).
>HLA runs on Linux and will wind up on QNX and BSD before too much longer.
>
AFAIK - it's a _very_ outdated version. Nevertheless -
I prefer GAS (as I did prefer A86 in DOS times)... ;)
nos...@scinq.org
> nospam wrote:
> > Beth wrote:
> > <whittle>
> > > In short...
> >
> > I don't think you're allowed to use that phrase :)
>
> I say it proverbially and as a relative measurement, of course...I
> could perhaps say "in summary" or "in synopsis" instead but, well,
> that just completely pretenious to my ear...mind you, "proverbially"
> sounds highly pretenious too but there's no other way to say that
> properly without using "long words" so it'll have to do, lacking a
> reasonable alternative...
>
> Oh well, if all my words are "rant", "whittle" and so forth
> (adjectives so far used to describe snips) then perhaps I could always
learned somethin' new... that whole woman's tounge meaning to whittle
was unintended. must be used by more edjumakated folk, tho i've been
to the 3rd grade a bit. i was just carving the words away.
i just saw a wee bit of irony in the phrase after reading the post (&
yes i read all of it). not trying to make an enemy or hurl serious
barbs so... rafe is backing away from this thread slowly with his
hands raised high.
> take up sewing, cooking, cleaning and other "respectable female
> pursuits" in order to please m'lords and masters instead...patronising
> gits...
>
> Beth :)
rafe
PS: git = unhelpful person? yes that's me sometimes. patronizing?
never.
C
> you ARE hanging out on those _ _`\ )
> wacko-leftist web sites. I know (^ ) )
> this because that's the only ~-( )
> place where the proposterous _'((,,,)))
> "Carlyle Group" conspiracy theory ,-' \_/ `\
> is being disseminated. ( , |
Though I may disagree with some of Beth's conclusions, I have
found no major factual inaccuracies within. Beth is correct to
point out the many things the media (at least in America) does
not, and even though Beth may sound like a "wacko-leftist" I
assue you from my prospective (on her posts) she is fairly
central politically - it may be that the political culture is
shifting so far to the right in the present times any sane
centrist sounds very left wing, at least from the right wing
media. Do not believe what anyone says (especailly in the
media), question everything both the views of 'right' and
'left', distrust anyone who says you should not question,
look for inconsistancys - there is no inconsistancy in truth.
There is enough inconsistant propaganda coming out of the USA
to make anyone at least half infomed smell a rat, the only
question left is 'what kind of rat?'.
"Free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny.
The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip
on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality,
but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public
discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of
he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart
he dreams himself your master."
-- Commissioner Pravin Lal; UN Declaration of Rights (?)
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect
liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent ... the
greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by
men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
-- Justice Louis.D.Brandeis
> Of course, socialists and commu- \ / | |
> nists have never been very good =()=: / ,' aa
> at economics. When this "conspiracy"
> is analyzed in economic terms, it makes absolutely NO
> sense whatsoever. But then, the left assumes that
> you're as ignorant about economics as THEY are.
I would argue that the right wing is no good at economics either,
if you take for 1 moment a look at the tax 'reforms' / cuts going
on in the USA you will see that they have no idea. These polocies
failed with Reagen, failed with Bush (version 1) and are failing
yet again with Bush (version 2).
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a
different result." -- Albert Einstein
Since Bush(v2)'s recovery package
(haha - war is peace, etcetera) another 2.2 million have become
unemployed, the national debt has risen to $6,000,000 millon and
the deficit has risen (making the stock market jumpy) - compare
this to when Bush entered office - the budget was $500 million
in surplus and it looked like the national debt was going to be
paid off with 10 years. Does giving tax cuts to those in the
to top 1%, the richest people, seem a good idea? Especially when
those people are known to avoid as much tax as possible via off-
shore funds and tax loop holes, surely they are just going to
squrrel it away in their ever increasing bank accounts and, as
less money will be changing hands, the poor (those who have no
ability to save or invest) will become worst off.
(Sorry for the brief explanation, it would take a small (and
very boring) book to get a complete picture).
"If a society cannot help the many who are poot, it cannot save
the few who are rich." -- J.F.Kennedy
(and for the irony ...)
"Your enemy is not surrounding your country - your enemy is
ruling your country." -- G.W.Bush (2003/1/28)
> Get a grip, Beth. You're becoming nuttier by the week.
> I'm REALLY starting to worry about you.
"If you can cut the people off from their history, then they can
be easily persuaded." -- Karl Marx (real leftist nutter).
Trouble is that is what the media today is doing, and by
extension you by such uninformed, personal attacks - to the
intellegent you may appear joking (as such it may well apear to
you), however to the ignorant such words have weight. Though
we all enjoy ribbing Beth about the shear size of her posts
(yes, even I am not above that), try to cut down on the jibes;
they only serve as a pointless attack on the person, an appeal
to the emotions not against the facts. Beth's theory may be
'nutty', but why not state what you think is going on? By
simple childish attacks, you are only serving to fog the matter.
> Geez, I liked it a lot better when your major concern
> was going to the neighborhood discotheque, and maybe
> picking up a guy once in a while. At least that was
> fairly normal. What the heck happened?
The world is changing - and from our perspective it looks like
a change for the worse.
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win
without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will
be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you
will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a
precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You
may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because
it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
-- Winston Churchill
Sadily, all I can hope to achieve is to seek to inform those
(id est the people of the USA) who can make a difference by
unelecting Bush.
"That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among
Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,
that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it ..."
-- Declaration of Independence
That afore mentioned consent is useless if it is mearly the
consent of the ignorant. At least in this group I feel no need
to constantly speak my peice, as Beth does so far more eliquently
(and frequently) than I even could.
> You're off your medication again, aren't you. Hehehe!
"You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white
guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest player in the NBA
is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing
the US of arrogance, and Germany doesn't want to go to war."
-- Chris Rock
And in insane times, the sane look mad.
"Let them call me a rebel and I welcome it, I feel no concern
from it; but I should suffer the misery of demons were I to
make a whore of my soul." -- Thomas Paine
Oh, and one more since it is relevant to the times ...
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
-- Willian Pit, 1783/11/18
C 2003/5/16
"With your brains in your head and your feet in your shoes
you can go in any direction you choose." -- Dr. Seuss
Annie
On 2003-05-16 black...@asean-mail.com said:
> ...even though Beth may sound like a "wacko-leftist" I
> assue you from my prospective (on her posts) she is fairly
> central politically...
Your key phrase here being "...from MY perspective..."
You haven't explicitly stated what your perspective is.
To a Muslim, George Bush looks like a flaming liberal.
And to a dedicated radical communist, Billy-Bob "Bubba"
Klinton looks like a reactionary ultra-conservative.
> ...if you take for 1 moment a look at the tax 'reforms' / cuts
> going on in the USA you will see that they have no idea. These
> polocies failed with Reagen, failed with Bush (version 1) and
> are failing yet again with Bush (version 2).
Don't know where you're getting your information, but
it's quite erroneous.
Each time a U.S. administration has -cut- federal taxes
(I mean ALL federal taxes, not just income taxes), it has
always resulted in a massive INCREASE in revenue to the
federal coffers.
It happened with the Kennedy tax cut in the early '60s
(Kennedy was a Democrat, by the way), and it happened
again with the Reagan tax cut in the '80s.
Bush 1 did not cut taxes. If you'll recall correctly, he
RAISED'em; he caved in to leftist pressure. Tax -cuts-
were never on the Bush 1 agenda. What he said was, "No
-new- taxes" -- although he defaulted on that position.
Bush 2 gave a one-time rebate on personal -income- taxes,
but his across-the-board federal tax-cutting proposal
hasn't yet been enacted into law...so it can't possibly
be "failing." It hasn't happened yet.
> ...Since Bush(v2)'s recovery package (haha - war is peace,
> etcetera) another 2.2 million have become unemployed, the
> national debt has risen to $6,000,000 millon and the
> deficit has risen (making the stock market jumpy) - compare
> this to when Bush entered office - the budget was $500 million
> in surplus and it looked like the national debt was going to
> be paid off with 10 years. Does giving tax cuts to those in
> the to top 1%, the richest people, seem a good idea? ...
_____
Well, this pretty much tells us what ((( `\
"your perspective" is. You're a liberal _ _`\ )
who looks to Guvvermint to solve eco- (^ ) )
nomic and social problems. I'm afraid ~-( )
you're doomed to disappointment, dawg. _'((,,,)))
,-' \_/ `\
There's nothing a Guvvermint -- or an ( , |
individual president -- can to to `-.-'`-.-'/|_|
"cure" economic ills. History clearly \ / | |
shows that economic ups-and-downs are =()=: / ,' aa
cyclical, and are to be expected.
Attempts at artificial intervention bugger things up more,
and in some cases delay recovery.
Rising federal deficits do not make a stock market "jumpy."
Some of the U.S. stock market's best performances over the
years have been during times of inflation and deficits.
The leftist characterization of "tax cuts for the rich" is
not only inaccurate, but it's also disingenuous; a lie.
Take New York: the average working-class person there earns
about $45,000 a year. An average family, with both spouses
working, brings in about $90,000 a year. Are these people
"rich?" Maybe they might be considered "rich" in Elephant's
Breath, North Dakota, or in Zimbabwe. But not in New York.
Yet THESE are the people who would benefit the most from the
proposed tax cuts; not "the rich."
Plus, the proposed tax overhaul would raise the bar on the
income level at which taxes are owed. So the very lowest-
income people, who currently are paying income taxes, would
be exempt from taxes altogether. That doesn't sound like a
"tax cut for the rich."
Face it, d00d, you really don't know what you're talking
about. You must be hanging out on those same wacko web sites
that Beth frequents. Hehehe!
Charles D. Quarles
No, no, no! OPEC is a group of thuggish governments. Microsoft isn't a
cartel, it is a single, dominant supplier in one sector of the market.
>
>>> Yes, yes, how could I ever have one bad thought about the
>>> most selfless and charitable organisation in the world? I
>>> immediately will throw away all the stuff I've ever coded
>>> and wipe my HDs. Who am I - to make one of those holy men
>>> unemployed? And - of course - I will throw away the Linux
>>> and OS/2 systems, too. What an evil software. Instead - I
>>> will purchase (at least) _one_ copy of Microsoft's latest
>>> OS each month, so they don't have to starve...
>>>
>>
>> Sorta like GM wanting us to replace our cars every three years
>> so they don't starve?
>>
>
> See above. If GM would hold 96% of the market, they would
> produce cars which are _junk_ after 2 years, for sure. As
> long as there are competitors, they can't do it...
>
No, they wouldn't, because that would encourage alternate suppliers.
Competition isn't just having existing alternate suppliers, it is any other
alternate use or potential supplier of an alternate use. Plus, being 96% of
today's market says nothing about tomorrow's market.
But Bernhard, ideas are not patentable nor copyrightable in the US. It is
the implementations of ideas that can be patented or copyrighted. In the
US, all you have to do is produce it. If you use the work of others you
must get permission to use it before you can copyright it. I think that you
are basically correct in that you want to trade fairly with others; but no
human can control how others will use your ideas once you publish them. You
can only control the implementations of them.
You can only survive without money if you can survive without trading.
Since trading makes life much easier, survival without money is not
something that I want to do.
Money isn't valuable or important. It is what you can do with it that is
valuable. Money isn't the only exchange medium either, but money does make
human energy and human time visible(tangible). That is the only real value
of money.
Charles
bv_schornak
Charles D. Quarles wrote:
[Microsoft]
>>Your picture stinks. There (at least in Europe) is a good
>>mix of cars of _different_ brands. In your example, it is
>>as follows - out of one million cars there are:
>>
>>960,000 GM
>> 30,000 BMW
>> 10,000 other brands...
>>
>>And GM didn't sell the most of the stuff to the customers
>>the direct way, it "came along" with the box of cereals a
>>good citicen buys for his breakfast...
>>
>>If you compare monopolies - then a comparison to the OPEC
>>would hit the nail much better. Like Microsoft, they have
>>complete _control_ over the market!
>>
>>
>
>No, no, no! OPEC is a group of thuggish governments. Microsoft isn't a
>cartel, it is a single, dominant supplier in one sector of the market.
>
Sometimes even I don't see the things as they are...
But - at least in Europe - most people do not distinguish
between the both. They call things by the name they see -
and Microsoft's dominant position on the market makes the
people "feel" it like I wrote. Seen from the _scientific_
point of view - I am wrong, of course!
>>See above. If GM would hold 96% of the market, they would
>>produce cars which are _junk_ after 2 years, for sure. As
>>long as there are competitors, they can't do it...
>>
>>
>No, they wouldn't, because that would encourage alternate suppliers.
>Competition isn't just having existing alternate suppliers, it is any other
>alternate use or potential supplier of an alternate use. Plus, being 96% of
>today's market says nothing about tomorrow's market.
>
If alternate suppliers have a chance to place a product -
which is one of the main problems, because Microsoft uses
very bad methods to keep competitors out of their market.
The 96 % may change, if Microsoft keeps the line with the
TCPA "vision". I think, that most people don't like, if a
software company has complete access to their desktops...
>>>As long as you make your software freely available, those _poor_
>>>people will still be able to use it for free, regardless of what rich
>>>companies do with it. Were you to place your software in the
>>>public domain, for example, MS could legitimately take your software,
>>>modify it, and get rich(er) off of it. But they couldn't stop those
>>>poor
>>>people from continuing to use the software that you wrote.
>>>
>>Am I the money giving cow of other people? It still is my
>>work, and it intentionally isn't thought to make _anyone_
>>rich!
>>
>But Bernhard, ideas are not patentable nor copyrightable in the US. It is
>the implementations of ideas that can be patented or copyrighted. In the
>US, all you have to do is produce it. If you use the work of others you
>must get permission to use it before you can copyright it. I think that you
>are basically correct in that you want to trade fairly with others; but no
>human can control how others will use your ideas once you publish them. You
>can only control the implementations of them.
>
Right. Me and laws - forget it. I always use my "feeling"
for justice instead of having a look into thick books. In
most cases my "feeling" is very accurate, but it may fail
in some cases - like this one. The copyright for "ideas",
it's the "look and feel" thing, I guess. It's ok, if such
things cannot be copyrighted - would be the same, as if a
company would copyright the idea for the wheel, isn't it?
No - if I have a good idea how to design a new form of an
operating system (which is fool-proof to use), then it is
a step forwards, if there are other people who develop my
idea or improve it. Nothing bad about that, the community
will have a benefit.
OTOH - knowledge is a property of mankind. So I don't see
the benefit for all humans, if _some_ of them put patents
on it. Probably a matter of "philosophies", nothing which
could become reality in the next few years. Nevertheless,
it's my point of view...
>>Ok, that's the point: _Ownership_ of something. Maybe you
>>will not understand, that money means _nothing_ to me. In
>>the last 20 years I've lost _everything_ I had two times.
>>Was my damned own fault, but I can tell you, that all the
>>material things I've lost mean nothing - the only thing I
>>have in mind are my _mental_ belongings which were stored
>>on some media. That are the only things I'm missing - all
>>the material stuff is crap, nothing else. Every human can
>>survive without money, but without brain - you will die!
>>
>
>You can only survive without money if you can survive without trading.
>Since trading makes life much easier, survival without money is not
>something that I want to do.
>
>Money isn't valuable or important. It is what you can do with it that is
>valuable. Money isn't the only exchange medium either, but money does make
>human energy and human time visible(tangible). That is the only real value
>of money.
>
Money isn't a "evil" or "good" thing, it has neutral pro-
perties. It's a piece of metal or paper, nothing more and
nothing less, a crutch to exchange wares or working power
in defined amounts. Even if there is _no_ money in my own
philosophy - it is needed in our _real_ world.
It isn't the money in itself, which is bad or good, these
properties only depend on the "use" (or, much better, the
intention of the "user"). But - if you have a look at the
real world - I see almost everyone "ruled" by the race to
gather more and more of it. To "buy" a better life, reach
the top of the society, whatever else. Money replaced our
religion and human dignity. That's the real "evil" in the
world - the thing we _made_ out of a useful idea to simp-
lify the exchange of items!
My way to handle it is quite simple - as long as there is
some money in my pockets, I will spend or share it. If no
money is available, then I have to earn some. But - money
surely doesn't rule my life. I am living today - not in a
future with riches and no more work, because one fine day
I could reach this point - if I do a lot of work and save
all this money. I don't sell my life to the future - I do
live today, not tomorrow!
Jerry Coffin
says...
[ ... ]
> GCC wouldn't support proprietary extensions, and I don't
> use C++ at all...
Rather the contrary: I'd have a hard time naming a compiler that
supported more proprietary extensions than GCC -- it's barely possible
that some of the 16-bit DOS Compilers were close on sheer count, but
certainly not on pervasiveness or perversity.
--
Later,
Jerry.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
Jerry Coffin
says...
[ ... ]
> If alternate suppliers have a chance to place a product -
> which is one of the main problems, because Microsoft uses
> very bad methods to keep competitors out of their market.
>
> The 96 % may change, if Microsoft keeps the line with the
> TCPA "vision". I think, that most people don't like, if a
> software company has complete access to their desktops...
IMO, this is basically nonsense -- the only thing stopping somebody from
putting MS out of business is that while their products are far from
perfect, it's still a lot of work to produce something substantially
better.
Nonetheless, when somebody produces something better, they can get into
the market _very_ quickly and easily. If you want to build cars (for
example) the barriers to entry are extremely high -- it takes many
million of dollars worth of machinery, large plants, etc., to do so on
your own.
With software that's not the case, especially nowadays -- a $399 machine
is perfectly for programming anymore.
As far as distribution goes, the barriers may even be lower -- you won't
instantly get the market penetration of Microsoft, but the fact of the
matter is that if you have a good product, all it takes is an upload to
one of the (many) popular sites like cnet.com, and a reasonably
favorable article on something like slashdot.org, and you can go from
unknown to being distributed worldwide literally overnight.
When you get down to it, the SOLE barrier to entry into this market is
the vision, skill, dedication, etc., necessary to write something that
people really want. MS's competitors can whine all the want, (and may
even convince some courts to agree) but the bottom line is pretty
simple: they've mostly lost market share due to poor development, NOT
monopolistic practices and such. Companies that produce good products
get good market penetration. Companies that lose market share do so
almost exclusively because they produce inferior products that people
really don't want.
It's true that once they've lost that share, even coming even with MS
again won't allow them to regain it quickly or easily -- they have to
produce something enough better to convince people to switch, and that's
relatively unusual.
Many people produce products that are brilliant in a few ways, but are
also fatally flawed. MS rarely produces anything particularly
brilliant, but fatal flaws are also extremely rare. That means if
they're in a market at all, you have to produce a consistently excellent
product to compete. Most companies simply fail to do that.
Charles D. Quarles
That is the pernicious effect of socialist philosophy, religion and
propaganda. I like Microsoft. I applaud them for working with Intel to
make personal computers so useful, cheap, and plentiful. Some of their
tactics were rough, but pioneers live in a rough world. Would we be better
off if Kildall's CP/M had become what Microsoft and Windows is now? We'll
never know but I don't think so. Success is its own worst enemy.
>
>>> See above. If GM would hold 96% of the market, they would
>>> produce cars which are _junk_ after 2 years, for sure. As
>>> long as there are competitors, they can't do it...
>>>
>>>
>> No, they wouldn't, because that would encourage alternate suppliers.
>> Competition isn't just having existing alternate suppliers, it is
>> any other alternate use or potential supplier of an alternate use.
>> Plus, being 96% of today's market says nothing about tomorrow's
>> market.
>>
>
> If alternate suppliers have a chance to place a product -
> which is one of the main problems, because Microsoft uses
> very bad methods to keep competitors out of their market.
>
> The 96 % may change, if Microsoft keeps the line with the
> TCPA "vision". I think, that most people don't like, if a
> software company has complete access to their desktops...
>
I don't mind it at all. Would automobiles be as useful if the steering
wheel, floor mounted throttle, floor mounted brakes and accessible shift
levers hadn't won out? I also applaud Microsoft for not becoming the
afterthought that automotive operating systems are today. Does anyone
remember who the person or persons were who created this? We will not
forget Microsoft long after they are just another software company.
Justice, like any other idea has to be implemented to be useful. When
justice requires thick books for implementation then justice has been lost.
A wheel would have been patented, not copyrighted. After 20 years or so for
the inventor to start implementing production, anyone could produce them.
Indeed, it is generally the followers who do the production best, not the
initial inventor. Having a patent compensates the inventor for his time.
We do need to strike a balance, though. Too long a time or too vague a
means of implementation of patent law hurts. Not having patent laws hurt
too. Copyrights apply to art like painting, writing, music, programming,
etc. Copyrights are important so that artists can be fairly compensated for
their efforts. Even more than patents, copyrights are important tools for
encouraging innovation. Too restrictive or too loose copyright laws hurt
people. Look and feel copyrights are silly when pushed too far. That is
the one curse of the software industry that all have been guilty of.
> No - if I have a good idea how to design a new form of an
> operating system (which is fool-proof to use), then it is
> a step forwards, if there are other people who develop my
> idea or improve it. Nothing bad about that, the community
> will have a benefit.
>
> OTOH - knowledge is a property of mankind. So I don't see
> the benefit for all humans, if _some_ of them put patents
> on it. Probably a matter of "philosophies", nothing which
> could become reality in the next few years. Nevertheless,
> it's my point of view...
>
No. Knowledge is the property of its producer, but it can be owned by as
many humans who want to acquire the knowledge, keeping in mind that the
knowledge isn't exactly the same for each human that acquires it. That is
the benefit of copyrights and patents. It makes the ownership clear and
compensates the owner for the effort. A man is an end in himself, and may
not be used as the means of others without his consent. A family, a clan, a
town, a nation, a society all are the result of individuals, and are not
greater than the individuals who created the family, clan, town, nation or
society. Only God is greater than a man.
True, but you do live tomorrow, because each tomorrow will be today as long
as you live to see it.
Charles, from York, AL, USA
Charles D. Quarles
Exactly so.
Charles
bv_schornak
>>GCC wouldn't support proprietary extensions, and I don't
>>use C++ at all...
>>
>
>Rather the contrary: I'd have a hard time naming a compiler that
>supported more proprietary extensions than GCC -- it's barely possible
>that some of the 16-bit DOS Compilers were close on sheer count, but
>certainly not on pervasiveness or perversity.
>
My fault to generalize! I _only_ know the OS/2 ports, so
I didn't know that. IBM's VisualAge came at ~DM 1,000 at
that time, so there was no other choice than GCC (and it
included GAS, the only _native_ OS/2 assembler which was
available - IBM never offered an assembler for OS/2).
bv_schornak
I only can tell you something about our situation here in
Germany, that's where I see a lot of things and have info
about. Back in 1994/5, there was Windows 3.1. from Micro-
soft - the OS with the most installations on desktops. At
the same time there was a "vapor ware" Windows 95, which,
against the promises made by Microsoft, came out in 1996.
Meanwhile, IBM started the WARP 3 campaign. Compared with
Win3x - OS/2 was a superior OS. During the campaign there
were about 1,000,000 copies of WARP 3 sold, until the mid
of 1995. But IBM didn't think of another important thing:
There were no applications available which were of use on
a private machine. OS/2 was (and still is) an OS which is
targeted to banks and insurances. This "special" software
is of _no_ use on a stand-alone PC, and _ordinary_ people
don't spend thousands for a software they can't use. Most
software companies did not _port_ their software to OS/2,
because they were threatened, that they would not get the
latest Win95 APIs if they do so. They preferred to _wait_
almost one year, until Win95 finally came to the shops in
1996...
Without usable applications - the "superior" WARP 3 could
not _establish_ itself, it just had no chance to survive.
Maybe, this is the more descriptive version of what I was
talking about. You can't beat Microsoft - not even if you
have the _best_ product on earth. They control the market
with so many "dirty tricks", you have _no_ chance to beat
them in any way. Only the users are able to change this -
by purchasing e.g. Linux, BeOS, eCS or whatever else. The
bad thing is, that _most_ users don't even know, that any
other products than Windows _exist_. As long as Microsoft
rules the market via "bundling", no competitor will get a
foot into the market. If a PC manufacturer offers another
OS as an alternative to Windows - he has to pay Microsoft
the same "price per sold system" - if the customer choses
Windows or the alternative system. Additional, he must be
aware, that Microsoft tells him, that he will not be sup-
plied with their software anymore.
This are not _stories_ - it's fact. Taken from our German
c't magazine, the only independent computer magazine over
here. They cannot tell stories, because Microsoft is very
aggressive, if somebody reveals their daily "work" at the
marketing front. Meanwhile - triggered by some of the c't
articles - things changed a little bit, 'cause our courts
sentenced Microsoft to stop this practice at once. But it
may last some years, before there is a _real_ competition
on this market, again. And (as I could read) these things
were common practice in the USA, too...
Jerry Coffin
says...
[ ... ]
> My fault to generalize! I _only_ know the OS/2 ports, so
> I didn't know that. IBM's VisualAge came at ~DM 1,000 at
> that time, so there was no other choice than GCC (and it
> included GAS, the only _native_ OS/2 assembler which was
> available - IBM never offered an assembler for OS/2).
Nonsense -- the IBM Warp 4 toolkit includes ALP (Assembly Language
Processor) version 4.x. See:
http://service2.boulder.ibm.com/devcon/devcon/docs/warptlkt.htm
in case you're interested in details.
Native assemblers for OS/2 have been offered all the way back to MASM
5.0 on OS/2 1.0, close to 20 years ago now.
bv_schornak
Charles D. Quarles wrote:
>>[Microsoft]
>>
>>
>>But - at least in Europe - most people do not distinguish
>>between the both. They call things by the name they see -
>>and Microsoft's dominant position on the market makes the
>>people "feel" it like I wrote. Seen from the _scientific_
>>point of view - I am wrong, of course!
>>
>That is the pernicious effect of socialist philosophy, religion and
>propaganda. I like Microsoft. I applaud them for working with Intel to
>make personal computers so useful, cheap, and plentiful. Some of their
>tactics were rough, but pioneers live in a rough world. Would we be better
>off if Kildall's CP/M had become what Microsoft and Windows is now? We'll
>never know but I don't think so. Success is its own worst enemy.
>
I run OS/2 and have an AMD machine - "WiNTEL outside!"...
And now? Should we meet somewhere and "shoot it out"? Not
what I want. Gentlemen agreement: I respect your position
and you respect mine - is that an offer? ;)
>>If alternate suppliers have a chance to place a product -
>>which is one of the main problems, because Microsoft uses
>>very bad methods to keep competitors out of their market.
>>
>>The 96 % may change, if Microsoft keeps the line with the
>>TCPA "vision". I think, that most people don't like, if a
>>software company has complete access to their desktops...
>>
>>
>>
>I don't mind it at all. Would automobiles be as useful if the steering
>wheel, floor mounted throttle, floor mounted brakes and accessible shift
>levers hadn't won out? I also applaud Microsoft for not becoming the
>afterthought that automotive operating systems are today. Does anyone
>remember who the person or persons were who created this? We will not
>forget Microsoft long after they are just another software company.
>
For what reasons ever! ;)
(See my reply to Jerry's follow-up, too!)
Another huge difference between you country and mine. The
German people are bound to their tendency to obey (one of
the reasons why we had some "major problems" between 1933
and 1945), so even the most simple things are forged into
a thick book with laws and there are some of these books.
I am a member of a family, which always had some "rebels"
in the bloodline. I cannot really understand, why we need
a law for everything - if everybody feels responsible for
her / his deeds - these books could be _reduced_ to a few
pages...
Patents and copyrights: I'm not too much involved in this
topic, so I know the difference, of course, but sometimes
mismatch the terms. There are pros _and_ contras for both
of them. Not the thing which did ever interest me so much
that I would have gathered all available info about it. I
don't even like to put my work under my copyrights. But I
have no other choice, if I want to keep the rights to use
my own stuff...
>>No - if I have a good idea how to design a new form of an
>>operating system (which is fool-proof to use), then it is
>>a step forwards, if there are other people who develop my
>>idea or improve it. Nothing bad about that, the community
>>will have a benefit.
>>
>>OTOH - knowledge is a property of mankind. So I don't see
>>the benefit for all humans, if _some_ of them put patents
>>on it. Probably a matter of "philosophies", nothing which
>>could become reality in the next few years. Nevertheless,
>>it's my point of view...
>>
>No. Knowledge is the property of its producer, but it can be owned by as
>many humans who want to acquire the knowledge, keeping in mind that the
>knowledge isn't exactly the same for each human that acquires it. That is
>the benefit of copyrights and patents. It makes the ownership clear and
>compensates the owner for the effort. A man is an end in himself, and may
>not be used as the means of others without his consent. A family, a clan, a
>town, a nation, a society all are the result of individuals, and are not
>greater than the individuals who created the family, clan, town, nation or
>society. Only God is greater than a man.
>
Except the property thing - agreed. I even accept the en-
tity God, but you should know, that I'm a "pagan" (in the
terms of the available religions)... Patents - did Albert
Einstein put patents on his theories? Hertz, Newton, both
Curies, whoever?
Patents on material things may be ok - but if it is about
knowledge? What do you think about the companies who sell
areas on the moon to private investors? Comes to my mind,
if I read about such things... ;)
>>My way to handle it is quite simple - as long as there is
>>some money in my pockets, I will spend or share it. If no
>>money is available, then I have to earn some. But - money
>>surely doesn't rule my life. I am living today - not in a
>>future with riches and no more work, because one fine day
>>I could reach this point - if I do a lot of work and save
>>all this money. I don't sell my life to the future - I do
>>live today, not tomorrow!
>>
>>
>True, but you do live tomorrow, because each tomorrow will be today as long
>as you live to see it.
>
And - today meanwhile is yesterday... Don't think, that I
take your words easy and only give some dumb answers. The
things you told me are in my mind while I am on the road.
Much time to think about everything - maybe I will change
the one or other point in my philosophy - if there are no
more changes, then I'm probably brainwashed or dead...
Jerry Coffin
says...
[ ... ]
> I only can tell you something about our situation here in
> Germany, that's where I see a lot of things and have info
> about. Back in 1994/5, there was Windows 3.1. from Micro-
> soft - the OS with the most installations on desktops. At
> the same time there was a "vapor ware" Windows 95, which,
> against the promises made by Microsoft, came out in 1996.
At least here in the US, Windows 95 came onto the market in 1995, just
as promised. I suppose it's not particularly surprising if they
released it in English first, and translated to other languages later;
for better or worse, most companies serve their home market first, and
others second (if at all).
> Meanwhile, IBM started the WARP 3 campaign. Compared with
> Win3x - OS/2 was a superior OS.
Stated that simply, this is simply false. OS/2 Warp had some advantages
in some areas, but even compared to Windows 3.x, it has some serious
disadvantages as well.
> During the campaign there
> were about 1,000,000 copies of WARP 3 sold, until the mid
> of 1995. But IBM didn't think of another important thing:
> There were no applications available which were of use on
> a private machine. OS/2 was (and still is) an OS which is
> targeted to banks and insurances. This "special" software
> is of _no_ use on a stand-alone PC, and _ordinary_ people
> don't spend thousands for a software they can't use. Most
> software companies did not _port_ their software to OS/2,
> because they were threatened, that they would not get the
> latest Win95 APIs if they do so.
I'm afraid I can't agree on this. There were two rather different
reasons companies didn't produce native OS/2 software. The first was
that many (if not most) had sunk inordinate amounts of money into
producing OS/2 software years before, and never even came close to
recouping their investment.
The second was that OS/2 Warp ran Windows software well enough that the
demand for native software was relatively light. People preferred
native software if they could get it, but rarely if ever switched away
from something they liked just because something else was native.
In some ways, IBM was a victim of their own success: from a technical
viewpoint, they succeeded admirably in making OS/2 run Windows software,
but because of that, they never built a demand that supported a lot of
native development.
[ ... ]
> Without usable applications - the "superior" WARP 3 could
> not _establish_ itself, it just had no chance to survive.
Quite true, but this is hardly the fault of Microsoft -- in fact, the
majority of native applications for OS/2 that would have been useful to
a typical office worker were FROM Microsoft. Their sales were low
enough that I'm pretty sure MS lost money on them, but they were there.
For better or worse, however, quite a few OS/2 users were prejudiced
against MS to a degree that prevented them from buying this native
software, even if it would ultimately have benefited their platform of
choice to do so.
> Maybe, this is the more descriptive version of what I was
> talking about. You can't beat Microsoft - not even if you
> have the _best_ product on earth.
You can beat Microsoft, and you don't even need the best software on
earth to do it. Just for a few cases in point, nearly every Adobe
product is mediocre (at best), but they control a large market segment
in which MS has essentially no penetration whatsoever. IMO, Oracle
doesn't even qualify as mediocre, but (again) they have nearly total
dominance in a large segment -- and the degree to which MS has
penetrated seems to be based almost entirely on winning benchmarks and
such. In the financial software market, Money is in a distant second
place (or maybe even third -- I'm not sure) and seems to be achieving
penetration not by dirty tricks, but simply because they're working
their butts off to try to make it work more smoothly with every bank,
every check-writing service, every income-tax program, etc., in
existence.
The bottom line is simple: people can and do successfully compete with
MS on a regular basis. The ones that don't, usually fail by shooting
themselves in the foot. In all fairness, MS shoots themselves in the
foot as well on occasion, but they use a small-caliber, single-shot
weapon that's slow to reload and all the cartridges have apparently been
soaked in water for a while first, so even when they try, they sometimes
fail.
By contrast, most of their competitors seem to use large-caliber, fully-
automatic weapons that have been extremely carefully maintained, so they
shoot themselves in the feet much more dependably and at a much higher
rate.
> As long as Microsoft
> rules the market via "bundling", no competitor will get a
> foot into the market.
I don't know for sure in Germany, but this was discontinued years ago
here in the US. You might also be interested to know that the bundling
practice was actually originally mandated way back in the MS-DOS days,
and it wasn't MS that mandated it either -- it was IBM. IBM demanded
that any sales of DOS separate from a PC be of PC-DOS from IBM rather
than MS-DOS. They wrote the contracts to attempt to enforce that, but
(probably accidentally) mandated that MS's contracts with their
customers (i.e. the OEMs) require that accounting be done on a 1:1 basis
-- one machine, one copy of MS-DOS.
It was a bit humorous to later hear IBM bleating that this wasn't fair
and shouldn't be allowed! Admittedly, it was (by then) having effects
they hadn't anticipated or intended, but it was still a policy of their
design and execution.
> If a PC manufacturer offers another
> OS as an alternative to Windows - he has to pay Microsoft
> the same "price per sold system" - if the customer choses
> Windows or the alternative system. Additional, he must be
> aware, that Microsoft tells him, that he will not be sup-
> plied with their software anymore.
That's pure nonsense. MS cannot deprive any vendor of being able to buy
their software -- what they do is offer volume discounts, so if a vendor
guarantees to sell X copies of Windows, they pay substantially less than
twice as much as if they only sold X/2 copies.
This is a long ways from being exclusive to MS though -- nearly every
sort of vendor around (from grocery stores on up) sells at lower prices
when you buy larger volumes.
> This are not _stories_ - it's fact. Taken from our German
> c't magazine, the only independent computer magazine over
> here.
While C't is a fine magazine, simply being published in that magazine
does NOT make something a fact.
> They cannot tell stories, because Microsoft is very
> aggressive, if somebody reveals their daily "work" at the
> marketing front.
Rather the opposite -- Microsoft is big enough (and perceived as being
much bigger than they really are) that there are very few companies they
can/could sue with impunity. If they try to sue anybody short of a
truly immense company, they know they'll be seen (and publicized) as a
big bully beating up on a smaller company. Compared (for example) to an
article in C't, suing would get them much greater negative publicity
than the article possibly could by itself. The article would also become
news in itself, so instead of being restricted to an obscure technical
journal, it would instead be carried in all the news major newspapers,
magazines, etc. In short, the situation becomes essentially a no-win
for MS, no matter what they do, and the least damage to them is nearly
always going to be to simply ignore almost everything they can.
Phil Carmody
> I don't mind it at all. Would automobiles be as useful if the steering
> wheel, floor mounted throttle, floor mounted brakes and accessible shift
> levers hadn't won out?
As it's evident that using the left hand lever for a clutch, the right
handgrip for an accelerator, the right hand lever for a brake, the left
foot lever for a brake, and a right foot lever to change gear would never
work as a way of controlling a vehicle, right?
> I also applaud Microsoft for not becoming the
> afterthought that automotive operating systems are today. Does anyone
> remember who the person or persons were who created this? We will not
> forget Microsoft long after they are just another software company.
Yeah, but people remember The Village People too.
It's fun to crash with an UAE yeah!
It's fun to crash with a GPF yeah!
MS has everything for fuckwits to enjoy
As long as a crash don't annoy.
It's fun to crash with a BSOD
....
Phil
Frank Kotler
> On Sun, 18 May 2003 12:37:38 +0000, Charles D. Quarles wrote:
>
>>I don't mind it at all. Would automobiles be as useful if the steering
>>wheel, floor mounted throttle, floor mounted brakes and accessible shift
>>levers hadn't won out?
>
> As it's evident that using the left hand lever for a clutch, the right
> handgrip for an accelerator, the right hand lever for a brake, the left
> foot lever for a brake, and a right foot lever to change gear would never
> work as a way of controlling a vehicle, right?
Exactly. You want to work the clutch with your foot, and shift with your
hand. Indian had it right! :)
Seriously, the steering wheel/steering column become a deadly weapon in
a crash. I saw a proposal, many years ago, to control a vehicle by a
joystick-like device at the driver's side, rather than "running down the
road with a knife behind a paper plate aimed at your chest".
Of course, there's a lot of resistance to a control interface that
people aren't used to. Lookit HLA!
Best,
Frank
Phil Carmody
> Phil Carmody wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 May 2003 12:37:38 +0000, Charles D. Quarles wrote:
>>
>>>I don't mind it at all. Would automobiles be as useful if the steering
>>>wheel, floor mounted throttle, floor mounted brakes and accessible shift
>>>levers hadn't won out?
>>
>> As it's evident that using the left hand lever for a clutch, the right
>> handgrip for an accelerator, the right hand lever for a brake, the left
>> foot lever for a brake, and a right foot lever to change gear would never
>> work as a way of controlling a vehicle, right?
>
> Exactly. You want to work the clutch with your foot, and shift with your
> hand. Indian had it right! :)
>
> Seriously, the steering wheel/steering column become a deadly weapon in
> a crash. I saw a proposal, many years ago, to control a vehicle by a
> joystick-like device at the driver's side, rather than "running down the
> road with a knife behind a paper plate aimed at your chest".
But in the days of Indians, in the UK at least, they had "pedestrian
slicers" fitted! I see such devices are being mooted again, bizarrely.
<sunglasses sensitivity="peril">
> Of course, there's a lot of resistance to a control interface that
> people aren't used to. Lookit HLA!
</sunglasses>
Did somebody say something? ;-)
Phil
C
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
Thanks you for your reply.
(I will try to cut back on the quotes this time).
> On 2003-05-16 black...@asean-mail.com said:
>
> > ...even though Beth may sound like a "wacko-leftist" I
> > assue you from my prospective (on her posts) she is fairly
> > central politically...
>
> Your key phrase here being "...from MY perspective..."
> You haven't explicitly stated what your perspective is.
As stated I am not refering to my persective as my political
stand point, mearly stating that I can only measure Beth's views
from what is post to the newsgroups I frequent. Though a more
real time discussion would most likely lead to a more complete
understanding of her views; I lack the luxary.
As for myself (as your above statement does request information
on this point), I do not consider my self of any political
stripe, they are all far to idealistic for my nature. Though
idealism itself is not a bad thing one must recognise ones
idealistic way is the only way - there are many others which
may work and many situations where ideology must give way to
pragmatism.
> To a Muslim, George Bush looks like a flaming liberal.
> And to a dedicated radical communist, Billy-Bob "Bubba"
> Klinton looks like a reactionary ultra-conservative.
To many people who I have discussed this with Bush looks like
a fundementalist. As for Clinton he appears centre right (at
least from a european prospective); the only respect I have
for him is that many of his policies seemed to work, though
he lacked.
The problem I see in the politics of the USA (and UK) is both
a lack of real oposition politics and no real way of electing
an alternative to what could be uncharitably called a rotary
kelptocracy. At least, in the UK, the press provides some
oposition.
> > ...if you take for 1 moment a look at the tax 'reforms' / cuts
> > going on in the USA you will see that they have no idea. These
> > polocies failed with Reagen, failed with Bush (version 1) and
> > are failing yet again with Bush (version 2).
>
> Don't know where you're getting your information, but
> it's quite erroneous.
Please state facts and figures to support that claim.
In support of my assertion I add the following facts
("The Indebted Society", Little Brown, 1996, p24)
"In 1981, the year Reagan took office, the public debt was
26.5 % of the gross domestic product (GDP)....In 1993, the
year that Bush left office, the public debt was a staggering
51.9 percent of the GDP."
Lets look to other countries where the policy of trickle down
economics has been applied, specifically Barbados. In 1986
the usually socialist state decided to play with this trickle
down supply side rubbish, despite warings from economists.
Five years later with 35000 (~33% of jobs) more unemployed, and
reserves almost wiped out they where force to call in the IMF.
Which promptly prescribed across the board pay cuts and higher
taxes.
> Each time a U.S. administration has -cut- federal taxes
> (I mean ALL federal taxes, not just income taxes), it has
> always resulted in a massive INCREASE in revenue to the
> federal coffers.
Where does this assertion come from?
I assume you mean that whenever federal taxes are cut
the economy grows, and this growth results in an increase
in gross income. If that is the case then the cuts must
be targeted at what increases investment by reducing the
cost of that investment, what causes cash to keep moving
within the economy, what decreases government spending
and most important what causes the economy to grow.
If people feel their jobs are insecure they will avoid
spending, if companies cannot be trusted with their
accounts there will be less investment, if government
borrowing is heavy the cost of borrowing rises, if
speculation becomes to rife another dot-con style could
occur, if federal relief is cut either essential sevices
must be reduced (ego generating redundancies) or state
and local taxes raised (erasing the benifit of the
federal tax cut).
A true economist would probably add a hundered minor
factors to this, and a few major ones.
The authors of the afore mentioned book argue that each 1%
cut in taxes equals another 1.5% out of work, and every
$100,000 million cut in an economy already in recession
equals another 1.2 million unemployed. Though the current
USA economy may be in 'stagnation' rather than full
recession, I believe the figures will be largely unchanged.
A few sites (watch the wrap)...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/134689662_raspberry06.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/22/opinion/22KRUG.html
http://www.dailykos.com/archives/002714.html#002714
http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-vpcoc083272909may08,0,3319374.column
http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/opinion_columnists/article/0,1713,BDC_2490_1882411,00.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/116684_means10.html
> It happened with the Kennedy tax cut in the early '60s
> (Kennedy was a Democrat, by the way), and it happened
> again with the Reagan tax cut in the '80s.
For Reagan it resulted in a doubling of the national debt,
as for Kennedy I know little on the nature of his governments
tax cuts, of the prevaling economic situation, or of the
longer term results - I therefore should not pass comment.
As for him being either a Democrat or a Republican I could
not care less.
> Bush 1 did not cut taxes. If you'll recall correctly, he
> RAISED'em; he caved in to leftist pressure. Tax -cuts-
> were never on the Bush 1 agenda. What he said was, "No
> -new- taxes" -- although he defaulted on that position.
It is not just the increase or decrease that has an effect
but where it is targetted. An extra $100 to a low-income
family would (due to multiplier effects) produce a much
better result than an extra $100 to a millionare. A similar
effect happens when a tax raise takes $100 off either a
porper or a millionare.
> Bush 2 gave a one-time rebate on personal -income- taxes,
> but his across-the-board federal tax-cutting proposal
> hasn't yet been enacted into law...so it can't possibly
> be "failing." It hasn't happened yet.
Thats why I said "failing", not "failed" - "failing" indicates
something in the process of happening. "Failed" would indicate
something which has already happened. As for the failing
statement see the above articles. Take for instance proposed
$550,000 million tax cut. Bush (speach at Timken, Co) stated
that, by 2004, 1 million jobs would be created.I calculate this
as about 1/2 million per anum per job, as the average wage in
the USA is approximately $50000 per anum, how come the government
cannot target the cuts more efficiently? - or if that is not
'leftist' enough for your how come the government cannot
directly employ these people at a tenth of the cost? Oh, and
where are these jobs that were created from previous tax cuts
anyway? - Accoring to the Bureau of Labor [sic] Statistics
324000 jobs where _lost_ in 2002.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2003/02/art1exc.htm
And between last March and April around 100,000 jobs were lost,
with national unemployment at just under 6%.
> > ...Since Bush(v2)'s recovery package (haha - war is peace,
> > etcetera) another 2.2 million have become unemployed, the
> > national debt has risen to $6,000,000 millon and the
> > deficit has risen (making the stock market jumpy) - compare
> > this to when Bush entered office - the budget was $500 million
> > in surplus and it looked like the national debt was going to
> > be paid off with 10 years. Does giving tax cuts to those in
> > the to top 1%, the richest people, seem a good idea? ...
> _____
> Well, this pretty much tells us what ((( `\
> "your perspective" is. You're a liberal _ _`\ )
> who looks to Guvvermint to solve eco- (^ ) )
> nomic and social problems. I'm afraid ~-( )
> you're doomed to disappointment, dawg. _'((,,,)))
Wrong, I believe in minimal government - providing only what
I consider the essential services near everyone needs, and thus
using this monoploy status to further reduce costs by bulk pur-
chase of supplies or furthering research in ways companies could
not achieve. Though I could live with a more socialist
government (which would be more idologically suited to targeted
spending aimed to stimilate growth), I do not like any
inefficiency and ineffectiveness - I am disappointed that is what
I see in the USA.
[nota bene: Try not to judge my views on one post alone. As I
normally attempt to constrain my posts to the current subject,
there is likely to be large errors in your extrapolations from
my otherwise stated beliefs].
Interestingly I see way of stimulating an economy though either
targeted spending or targeted tax cuts. Targeted spending could
have some side benifits (such as crime reduction, infastructure
regeneration or other quality of life improvements) but raises
the possibility of corruption or fraud (some companies are known
to overcharge for contracts). Tax cuts are more difficult
to control and must be accompanied with a streamlining of govern-
ment in a way which does not create loss of large numbers of
(mainly local) government jobs - simple cutting of 'red tape'
may achieve this the trouble being tax cuts tend to produce
questionable speculation - such as dot-cons. In my opinion tax
cuts are better suited to accelerating a growing economy than
stimulating a stagnating one.
> There's nothing a Guvvermint -- or an ( , |
> individual president -- can to to `-.-'`-.-'/|_|
> "cure" economic ills.
Cure - no, but the economy of any county does clearly respond
to government actions. Clearly, iIf governments had no effect,
then selling tax cuts (in what ever form) as benificial to
the economy would be a lie.
> History clearly \ / | |
> shows that economic ups-and-downs are =()=: / ,' aa
> cyclical, and are to be expected.
> Attempts at artificial intervention bugger things up more,
> and in some cases delay recovery.
Again, you are correct in stating ups-and-downs occur on
a regular (even rythmic) basis. However government policy
can turn an up into a sustained boom, or a down into a recession.
> Rising federal deficits do not make a stock market "jumpy."
> Some of the U.S. stock market's best performances over the
> years have been during times of inflation and deficits.
Sorry, I way ambigious with my terminology and unspecific about
my logic there. To take a simplistic view: deficits devalue
the currency against others which causes inflation which raises
the cost of borrowing which reduces investment and speculation
which effects the stock market. (That is only a simplified
version of one of the strands in the wed of cause and effect
which we call economics).
> The leftist characterization of "tax cuts for the rich" is
> not only inaccurate, but it's also disingenuous; a lie.
I disagree, an exageration maybe, but certainly not a lie.
The latest tax cut for instance puts over $90,000 into the
pockets of those top 0.1% earning more than $1 million and
$45,000 for those 1% earning >35000, while putting less
than $100 in the pockets of 49% of the poorest of the
employed.
After all that is what the trickle down economic theory is
all about, supposidly give to the rich and they will spend
or invest thus improving the economy. The trouble with this
policy is that it ignores that money given to the rich tends
to have a lower multiplying factor than that give to the poor,
that the rich tend to move their savings and companies into
offshore tax havens and that the rich can (and often do) try
to make a quick buck with risky or overhyped investments such
as the dot-cons.
> Take New York: the average working-class person there earns
> about $45,000 a year. An average family, with both spouses
> working, brings in about $90,000 a year. Are these people
> "rich?" Maybe they might be considered "rich" in Elephant's
> Breath, North Dakota, or in Zimbabwe. But not in New York.
> Yet THESE are the people who would benefit the most from the
> proposed tax cuts; not "the rich."
How would they benifit most? Especially if local and state
taxes are rising? How will the cuts in food stamps, school
lunches, healthcare for the poor or disabled resulting from
budget cuts affect the poor? Well, the last question I can
answer, a survey carried out in 30 counties in the USA
indicated a large increase in the number of disabled child-
ren going into care as there parents could not affore to
look after them. I expect this trend continues across most
of the USA.
> Plus, the proposed tax overhaul would raise the bar on the
> income level at which taxes are owed. So the very lowest-
> income people, who currently are paying income taxes, would
> be exempt from taxes altogether. That doesn't sound like a
> "tax cut for the rich."
Maybe the average workers are a little better off, but what
about the below average or the unemployed.
> Face it, d00d, you really don't know what you're talking
> about. You must be hanging out on those same wacko web sites
> that Beth frequents. Hehehe!
Sorry to disappoint, but most of my information comes from
reading broad sheet newspapers, or at least their online
equivelents (see links, though those provided are from
USA sites - to aviod an accusation of xenophoia). Try
sometime reading both 'leftist' and 'rightist' papers,
look only for the facts - where they coincide is normally
around where the truth appears.
Maybe some sources and figures (other than the ASCII art :-)
to add some weight to your claims.
C 2003/5/19
bv_schornak
Frank Kotler wrote:
> Seriously, the steering wheel/steering column become a deadly weapon
> in a crash. I saw a proposal, many years ago, to control a vehicle by
> a joystick-like device at the driver's side, rather than "running down
> the road with a knife behind a paper plate aimed at your chest".
>
> Of course, there's a lot of resistance to a control interface that
> people aren't used to. Lookit HLA!
Daimler-Chrysler is building such prototypes at the moment,
have a look at
<http://www.daimlerchrysler.com/index_e.htm>.
Search for "joystick", then pick the 2nd found article...
Do _you_ use HLA?
bv_schornak
>>My fault to generalize! I _only_ know the OS/2 ports, so
>>I didn't know that. IBM's VisualAge came at ~DM 1,000 at
>>that time, so there was no other choice than GCC (and it
>>included GAS, the only _native_ OS/2 assembler which was
>>available - IBM never offered an assembler for OS/2).
>>
>
>Nonsense -- the IBM Warp 4 toolkit includes ALP (Assembly Language
>Processor) version 4.x. See:
>
>http://service2.boulder.ibm.com/devcon/devcon/docs/warptlkt.htm
>
>in case you're interested in details.
>
>Native assemblers for OS/2 have been offered all the way back to MASM
>5.0 on OS/2 1.0, close to 20 years ago now.
>
Ok, no assembler was included in the IBM compilers which
were published _prior_ to VisualAge. I have forgotten to
mention Watcom, came to my mind while reading the linked
page - which is a part of IBMs software choice. You have
to pay $ 204 to get access to the latest updates and the
other stuff. I cannot afford such a sum - there are more
important things I will buy next. The assembler from the
link is MASM compatible - I don't think, that I will re-
code my apps from AT&T to MASM. If I would port it, then
I would probably convert it to NASM style - Frank almost
convinced me to do that... ;)
I have nearly all OS/2 related CDs I could ever gather -
but there never was another assembler, except GAS. Since
free software is the only way for me to get software - I
could never afford commercial compilers, Watcom was very
cheap compared to IBM, but it still came at DM 500 - I'm
bound to use GCC. It was the only package which came for
free and was available from the sources I had access to.
I found my own way how to write the ST-system - and some
testing applications - more than 8 years _ago_. It would
mean a lot of - IMO - unnecessary work to "recode" it to
another syntax. I prefer assemblers, which can be _used_
_without_ the _additional_ knowledge how to "speak" with
your compiler, so it may do the right things. I know the
opcodes I need - and that's sufficient to write code:
<-file begins->
.text
OPCODES
<-file ends->
How about that? Does a _more_ simple assembler exist out
there? A86 comes close to it, but doesn't support 32 bit
code, except you pay. GCC is free available! I'll search
some more info about NASM, but this may take a while...
Frank Kotler
bv_schornak wrote:
> <http://www.daimlerchrysler.com/index_e.htm>.
>
> Search for "joystick", then pick the 2nd found article...
*Twin* joysticks! Kewl!
> Do _you_ use HLA?
Not ordinarily. I recently gave it a bit of a trial helping Paul Panks
debug his game. Turns out that it *wasn't* completely portable to Linux,
but now it is, thanks to a library contribution by Mark de Wever (HLA
begins to spread its wings!)
To be honest, I found it a painful experience. Unfamiliar syntax, and
the thing is slow! Working by trial and error becomes a poor technique
when it takes two minutes or so to find out if it worked! Randy's put so
much effort into the documentation that I feel bad for not having read
it, but I haven't - except as a reference on an "emergency" basis :)
Paul's program is pretty much a "translation" of a Basic program into
asm - exactly the situation Betov was concerned about. I don't see
anything about HLA that would *prevent* someone from re-working it to
"think in asm" (not much advantage in optimizing a text adventure). But
HLA *did* allow someone new to asm (AFAIK) to write a fairly complex
program. Paul mentioned that his latest re-work took 5-1/2 hours,
including a meal break. Not too horrible a "development cycle".
I think "high level assembly" is an interesting idea, but I remain a
"low level guy". I probably won't buy that car with the twin joysticks,
either :)
Best,
Frank
Charles D. Quarles
bv_schornak wrote:
> Hello Charles!
>
>
> Charles D. Quarles wrote:
>
>>> [Microsoft]
>>>
>>>
>>> But - at least in Europe - most people do not distinguish
>>> between the both. They call things by the name they see -
>>> and Microsoft's dominant position on the market makes the
>>> people "feel" it like I wrote. Seen from the _scientific_
>>> point of view - I am wrong, of course!
>>>
>> That is the pernicious effect of socialist philosophy, religion and
>> propaganda. I like Microsoft. I applaud them for working with
>> Intel to make personal computers so useful, cheap, and plentiful.
>> Some of their tactics were rough, but pioneers live in a rough
>> world. Would we be better off if Kildall's CP/M had become what
>> Microsoft and Windows is now? We'll never know but I don't think
>> so. Success is its own worst enemy.
>>
>
> I run OS/2 and have an AMD machine - "WiNTEL outside!"...
Okay. I run an AMD machine also.
>
> And now? Should we meet somewhere and "shoot it out"? Not
> what I want. Gentlemen agreement: I respect your position
> and you respect mine - is that an offer? ;)
I do respect yours, Bernhard.
>
>>> If alternate suppliers have a chance to place a product -
>>> which is one of the main problems, because Microsoft uses
>>> very bad methods to keep competitors out of their market.
>>>
>>> The 96 % may change, if Microsoft keeps the line with the
>>> TCPA "vision". I think, that most people don't like, if a
>>> software company has complete access to their desktops...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I don't mind it at all. Would automobiles be as useful if the
>> steering wheel, floor mounted throttle, floor mounted brakes and
>> accessible shift levers hadn't won out? I also applaud Microsoft
>> for not becoming the afterthought that automotive operating systems
>> are today. Does anyone remember who the person or persons were who
>> created this? We will not forget Microsoft long after they are just
>> another software company.
>>
>
> For what reasons ever! ;)
>
> (See my reply to Jerry's follow-up, too!)
Okay, to each his own.
Do not forget that Germans are one of our largest immigrant groups, though
that does date back to the 19th Century.
> Patents and copyrights: I'm not too much involved in this
> topic, so I know the difference, of course, but sometimes
> mismatch the terms. There are pros _and_ contras for both
> of them. Not the thing which did ever interest me so much
> that I would have gathered all available info about it. I
> don't even like to put my work under my copyrights. But I
> have no other choice, if I want to keep the rights to use
> my own stuff...
>
Why not? Copyrights are as natural as breathing. What is yours is yours
and you must defend that which is yours.
Theories are ideas. Ideas cannot be patented. Einstein was a patent clerk,
if I remember correctly.
Printed ideas can be copyrighted; but in the context of scientific work,
fair use copying and full quoting of other's work is expected. I do not
remember Einstein creating any inventions.
>
> Patents on material things may be ok - but if it is about
> knowledge? What do you think about the companies who sell
> areas on the moon to private investors? Comes to my mind,
> if I read about such things... ;)
Areas on the moon are like land areas on Earth. No logical or moral
difference. Again, ideas=knowledge, cannot be patented or copyrighted. It
is the physical product: invention or work of art that is patentable or
copyrightable.
>
>>> My way to handle it is quite simple - as long as there is
>>> some money in my pockets, I will spend or share it. If no
>>> money is available, then I have to earn some. But - money
>>> surely doesn't rule my life. I am living today - not in a
>>> future with riches and no more work, because one fine day
>>> I could reach this point - if I do a lot of work and save
>>> all this money. I don't sell my life to the future - I do
>>> live today, not tomorrow!
>>>
>>>
>> True, but you do live tomorrow, because each tomorrow will be today
>> as long as you live to see it.
>>
>
> And - today meanwhile is yesterday... Don't think, that I
> take your words easy and only give some dumb answers. The
> things you told me are in my mind while I am on the road.
> Much time to think about everything - maybe I will change
> the one or other point in my philosophy - if there are no
> more changes, then I'm probably brainwashed or dead...
>
>
> Greetings from Augsburg
>
> Bernhard Schornak
Actually, Bernhard, you sound mostly like a US libertarian. Keep on
thinking and learning.
Charles
Charles D. Quarles
Phil Carmody wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2003 12:37:38 +0000, Charles D. Quarles wrote:
>> I don't mind it at all. Would automobiles be as useful if the
>> steering wheel, floor mounted throttle, floor mounted brakes and
>> accessible shift levers hadn't won out?
>
> As it's evident that using the left hand lever for a clutch, the right
> handgrip for an accelerator, the right hand lever for a brake, the
> left foot lever for a brake, and a right foot lever to change gear
> would never work as a way of controlling a vehicle, right?
>
It wasn't evident until use revealed it. I think that early automobiles
used tillers, hand brakes and hand throttles (I am not sure about the early
clutches); but nevertheless, the person or company that settled on our
current arrangement of vehicular controls has been forgotten.
>
>> I also applaud Microsoft for not becoming the
>> afterthought that automotive operating systems are today. Does
>> anyone remember who the person or persons were who created this? We
>> will not forget Microsoft long after they are just another software
>> company.
>
> Yeah, but people remember The Village People too.
>
> It's fun to crash with an UAE yeah!
> It's fun to crash with a GPF yeah!
> MS has everything for fuckwits to enjoy
> As long as a crash don't annoy.
>
> It's fun to crash with a BSOD
> ....
>
>
>
>
> Phil
Hmm, I've had UAE's but they are rare unless I'm running a rogue program or
driver. I've had GPF's but the same applies. I have probably had 10-20
BSOD in more than 10 years of using Windows; and those were due to hardware
problems. YMMV. I have never had Windows by itself to have UAE's, GPF's or
BSOD. These things all happened when using applications. Plus I have
routinely participated in Microsoft's official beta programs.
Charles
bv_schornak
There was a serious discussion between some people, who were
talking with me about the pros and contras of pure assembler
versus my way of mixed code (C+assembler). As you could see,
there was a kind of common base between Jeff and me and also
between Betov and me. The difference with Randall's position
is too large, but, even in this case - we both respect us as
a person (at least - I hope, that he is treating this like I
do).
After the discussion ended, you started to append replies to
the oldest postings in this discussion. That is: You replied
to things which were explained, cleared and developed in the
follow-ups - available for everybody who is able to read.
E.g. your 1326 lines posting and (short after that) the nice
posting I was so happy to read. Unfortunately I started with
the large posting, because the other one wasn't on my server
while I looked into the NG. If I would have seen it, I never
would have wasted 5 hours to read through this monster - nor
would I ever have written a reply for another 2 hours.
Ok, things happen. "I'm used to be abused!" - if it is some-
one who cheats me or someone who is using me to show, what a
good worker, citicen or luminary s/he is. I was a little bit
disappointed - of course - as I wrote my reply. Even if I am
used to these things - I didn't reach the point (yet), where
I would start to like it...
First: What was your intention behind? You "pick out" one of
the first postings of a discussion - where meanwhile most of
the positions were _developed_ - add some really disparaging
statements about my position (in this case the philosophy of
my way to reduce the _needed_ time to write applications, so
the _few_ hours of my spare time are used the most efficient
way), then post it (twice), and - because I wrote a note you
obviously did not like - start to attack me personally, in a
very condescending tone.
See - I don't want to hear _any_ apologies, excuses or what-
ever else. Things which were done are history - there's _no_
way to undo them - any whining doesn't make it better. It is
forgiven soon after I read it - there is a fat checkmark be-
hind the lines. Nevertheless, it would be a good practice to
waste some thoughts about the way we treat other people. The
question to ourselves: "How would I react, if this was me?".
It's not about trying to "undo" a deed - it's about learning
how to avoid it the next time...
Please - take some minutes and think about your _reasons_ to
attack my personal beliefs. That is what you _did_ in _both_
postings! If you come to a conclusion, I would be interested
in an answer to this question - regardless of the results!
Next: You append your comments with hundreds and hundreds of
lines to _some_ postings. People read it, think about it and
write a reply, if there were questions about the contents of
your posting. Don't you feel responsible for your words - so
you don't need to answer their questions? Did you ever think
about the time, other people need to read your postings and,
additional, write a reply? Wouldn't it be fair, if you write
on top of your postings: "You may reply - but you will never
get an answer!"? So everyone can chose to waste some time or
do something more useful? Either you talk _with_ the people,
or you waste much time while appending _monologues_ to their
postings! Quantity beats Quality?
Last: It would be nice, if you reduce your "tirades" against
McDonald's a little bit. You will not convince those who eat
there to stop it, and you do not need to convince people who
already don't eat there. It's probably not the best idea, if
you talk about this topic for 200 or 300 lines in your reply
to a posting about programming in C + asm. It takes a lot of
time to find out, which parts of the message include serious
statements, and which parts hold polemic waffle, only. BTW -
as I told you in several replies before, I don't buy food at
McDonald's, thus - all those paragraphs were obsolete. Also,
it would be a good idea to get informed about things you are
talking about. It isn't very exciting to read through _some_
hundred lines how microcontrollers are programmed - if there
is _no_ relation to reality. As there were no answers to the
reply (as usual), I think I should repeat it here, so it may
reach your eyes...
What's wrong with you? You become more and more superficial.
The more you write (in lines), the less you have to say. Its
really _tough_ to keep track of your thoughts, if you _hide_
them in tons of garbage about McDonald's or whatever else is
of no interest (e.g. microcontrollers - which are programmed
in Basic, C or Pascal -> practical knowledge, not theories).
Meanwhile, I think seriously about using the "mark newsgroup
read" button to read your postings. If you have _nothing_ to
write than common places and endless lessons of stuff every-
one already knows, then you should not expect, that too many
people invest their time to read through it. Wherever you've
buried the "old" Beth, please dig her out, so it makes sense
to talk with you again. Your _current_ way is headed towards
the void. Attacking people who stand at _your_ side does not
make too much sense. If you want to get rid of me - then one
simple sentence would be enough. Doesn't need to be done the
way you have chosen.
"Wise man said just walk this way
To the dawn of the light
The wind will blow into your face
As the years pass you by
Hear this voice from deep inside
It's the call of your heart
Close your eyes and you will find
Passage out of the dark
Here I am
Will you send me an angel
Here I am
In the land of the morning star
Wise man said just find your place
In the eye of the storm
Seek the roses along the way
Just beware of the thorns
Here I am
Will you send me an angel
Here I am
In the land of the morning star
Wise man said just raise your head
And reach out for the spell
Find the door to the promised land
Just believe in yourself
Hear this voice from deep inside
It's the call of your heart
Close your eyes and you will find
The way out of the dark
Here I am
Will you send me an angel
Here I am
In the land of the morning star"
[Send me an Angel - Scorpions]
Best wishes for your future
Bernhard
Ed Beroset
> Jerry Coffin wrote:
>
>>> My fault to generalize! I _only_ know the OS/2 ports, so
>>> I didn't know that. IBM's VisualAge came at ~DM 1,000 at
>>> that time, so there was no other choice than GCC (and it
>>> included GAS, the only _native_ OS/2 assembler which was
>>> available - IBM never offered an assembler for OS/2).
>>>
>>
>> Nonsense -- the IBM Warp 4 toolkit includes ALP (Assembly Language
>> Processor) version 4.x. See:
>>
>> http://service2.boulder.ibm.com/devcon/devcon/docs/warptlkt.htm
>>
>> in case you're interested in details.
>>
>> Native assemblers for OS/2 have been offered all the way back to MASM
>> 5.0 on OS/2 1.0, close to 20 years ago now.
>>
>
> Ok, no assembler was included in the IBM compilers which
> were published _prior_ to VisualAge. I have forgotten to
> mention Watcom, came to my mind while reading the linked
> page - which is a part of IBMs software choice.
FWIW, I bought Borland's C++ compiler for OS/2 many years ago, and it
included an assembler, too. I used it often until it became clear to me
that OS/2 was a dead-end path.
> another syntax. I prefer assemblers, which can be _used_
> _without_ the _additional_ knowledge how to "speak" with
> your compiler, so it may do the right things. I know the
> opcodes I need - and that's sufficient to write code:
>
> <-file begins->
>
> .text
>
> OPCODES
>
> <-file ends->
>
> How about that?
When I was doing assembly work under OS/2 many moons ago, I took
advantage of the feature that it had to create templates (can't remember
the actual OS/2 term for it). When I wanted to create a new assembly
language project, I'd just drag and drop the template over to whatever
directory I wanted to put it and it would automagically create the
directory, the Makefile, and an outline of an assembly language program.
It made things quite simple -- all I'd have to do was literally fill
in the blanks. These days, I do the same thing under Linux or under
Windows using a Perl script.
You're a programmer -- why not write a program for yourself? ;-)
Ed
bv_schornak
Frank Kotler wrote:
>> Do _you_ use HLA?
>
>
> Not ordinarily. I recently gave it a bit of a trial helping Paul Panks
> debug his game. Turns out that it *wasn't* completely portable to
> Linux, but now it is, thanks to a library contribution by Mark de
> Wever (HLA begins to spread its wings!)
>
> To be honest, I found it a painful experience. Unfamiliar syntax, and
> the thing is slow! Working by trial and error becomes a poor technique
> when it takes two minutes or so to find out if it worked! Randy's put
> so much effort into the documentation that I feel bad for not having
> read it, but I haven't - except as a reference on an "emergency" basis :)
>
> Paul's program is pretty much a "translation" of a Basic program into
> asm - exactly the situation Betov was concerned about. I don't see
> anything about HLA that would *prevent* someone from re-working it to
> "think in asm" (not much advantage in optimizing a text adventure).
> But HLA *did* allow someone new to asm (AFAIK) to write a fairly
> complex program. Paul mentioned that his latest re-work took 5-1/2
> hours, including a meal break. Not too horrible a "development cycle".
I didn't download it, just "flipped" through the pages
of the documentation. You may find my opinion all over
this thread...
Nevertheless, I respect the Randall's work, of course!
Only a dumb person shows no respect for others work...
BTW - still keep looking for a NASM -> OS/2 solution -
may last a while. I'm busy with too many open replies!
> I think "high level assembly" is an interesting idea, but I remain a
> "low level guy". I probably won't buy that car with the twin
> joysticks, either :)
Nor would I - it's a "Schmerzedes" ("Schmerz" = pain)... ;)
Frank Kotler
> BTW - still keep looking for a NASM -> OS/2 solution -
> may last a while. I'm busy with too many open replies!
Hehe. That's why I sometimes seem to be ignoring you and Ross :) It
*does* get to be a lot, at times. For Nasm, you *ought* to be able to
just downoad the source and "make -f Mkfiles/Makefile.os2". I don't know
if that actually still works without problems, but it's "supposed" to.
If not, send me the error log - doubt I'll be able to help, but...
But that's only if you "wanna" try Nasm. If C+Gas is working for you,
C+Nasm isn't going to be that much different. It's supposed to be an
"option" if you want it...
Greetings from Raymond,
Frank
(sounds like two guys - speaking of "guys" - Mikael Timofeevich
Kalashnikov - tank commander, wounded fighting the Nazis - dreamed up
his rifle in the hospital recuperating - still alive, AFAIK)
bv_schornak
>>I only can tell you something about our situation here in
>>Germany, that's where I see a lot of things and have info
>>about. Back in 1994/5, there was Windows 3.1. from Micro-
>>soft - the OS with the most installations on desktops. At
>>the same time there was a "vapor ware" Windows 95, which,
>>against the promises made by Microsoft, came out in 1996.
>>
>At least here in the US, Windows 95 came onto the market in 1995, just
>as promised. I suppose it's not particularly surprising if they
>released it in English first, and translated to other languages later;
>for better or worse, most companies serve their home market first, and
>others second (if at all).
>
As I told you. I only can give some information about the
things in Germany, and Windows never was my big favorite,
so I have few information about the sales in the USA.
>>Meanwhile, IBM started the WARP 3 campaign. Compared with
>>Win3x - OS/2 was a superior OS.
>>
>
>Stated that simply, this is simply false. OS/2 Warp had some advantages
>in some areas, but even compared to Windows 3.x, it has some serious
>disadvantages as well.
>
E.g.? AFAIK, OS/2 didn't crash that often. But I wouldn't
see this as a disadvantage. Since Win3x is completely in-
cluded in WARP 3 (as an emulated subsystem), and the say-
ing was "A better Win than Win!", I don't get the clue!
>>During the campaign there
>>were about 1,000,000 copies of WARP 3 sold, until the mid
>>of 1995. But IBM didn't think of another important thing:
>>There were no applications available which were of use on
>>a private machine. OS/2 was (and still is) an OS which is
>>targeted to banks and insurances. This "special" software
>>is of _no_ use on a stand-alone PC, and _ordinary_ people
>>don't spend thousands for a software they can't use. Most
>>software companies did not _port_ their software to OS/2,
>>because they were threatened, that they would not get the
>>latest Win95 APIs if they do so.
>>
>
>I'm afraid I can't agree on this. There were two rather different
>reasons companies didn't produce native OS/2 software. The first was
>that many (if not most) had sunk inordinate amounts of money into
>producing OS/2 software years before, and never even came close to
>recouping their investment.
>
Ok, I'm just too lazy to spend one or two days with doing
a research in the old magazines - there were _some_ cases
going to the courts, but much more cases were hidden from
the public eye, because the software companies feared the
consequences...
>The second was that OS/2 Warp ran Windows software well enough that the
>demand for native software was relatively light. People preferred
>native software if they could get it, but rarely if ever switched away
>from something they liked just because something else was native.
>
>In some ways, IBM was a victim of their own success: from a technical
>viewpoint, they succeeded admirably in making OS/2 run Windows software,
>but because of that, they never built a demand that supported a lot of
>native development.
>
There were some - thinking of PMview (meanwhile ported to
Win, too), Papyrus, Impos/2, Star Office and _some_ more,
but it wasn't enough to satisfy the users.
>>Without usable applications - the "superior" WARP 3 could
>>not _establish_ itself, it just had no chance to survive.
>>
>
>Quite true, but this is hardly the fault of Microsoft -- in fact, the
>majority of native applications for OS/2 that would have been useful to
>a typical office worker were FROM Microsoft. Their sales were low
>enough that I'm pretty sure MS lost money on them, but they were there.
>For better or worse, however, quite a few OS/2 users were prejudiced
>against MS to a degree that prevented them from buying this native
>software, even if it would ultimately have benefited their platform of
>choice to do so.
>
Might be. Today we have a lot of Open Source software for
OS/2 - I can do most things I could do with Windows. Only
the games don't run on OS/2. There is the ODIN project to
"convert" native Win9x software to OS/2, but it isn't too
much developed at the moment...
As you say yourself - it is not the quality which counts,
it's only the marketing. There are too many open replies,
so I don't have the time to do a deep research, but there
must be much more behind it...
I like your picture with the guns! :)
>>As long as Microsoft
>>rules the market via "bundling", no competitor will get a
>>foot into the market.
>>
>
>I don't know for sure in Germany, but this was discontinued years ago
>here in the US. You might also be interested to know that the bundling
>practice was actually originally mandated way back in the MS-DOS days,
>and it wasn't MS that mandated it either -- it was IBM. IBM demanded
>that any sales of DOS separate from a PC be of PC-DOS from IBM rather
>than MS-DOS. They wrote the contracts to attempt to enforce that, but
>(probably accidentally) mandated that MS's contracts with their
>customers (i.e. the OEMs) require that accounting be done on a 1:1 basis
>-- one machine, one copy of MS-DOS.
>
>It was a bit humorous to later hear IBM bleating that this wasn't fair
>and shouldn't be allowed! Admittedly, it was (by then) having effects
>they hadn't anticipated or intended, but it was still a policy of their
>design and execution.
>
If IBM "invented" the bundling idea, they're to blame for
it. Maybe they were digging their own grave...
Regardless who had this "great" idea, it won't become any
better in its consequences: Microsoft "rules" the market.
Their former "marketing tricks" - even if forbidden now -
gave them control.
>>If a PC manufacturer offers another
>>OS as an alternative to Windows - he has to pay Microsoft
>>the same "price per sold system" - if the customer choses
>>Windows or the alternative system. Additional, he must be
>>aware, that Microsoft tells him, that he will not be sup-
>>plied with their software anymore.
>>
>
>That's pure nonsense. MS cannot deprive any vendor of being able to buy
>their software -- what they do is offer volume discounts, so if a vendor
>guarantees to sell X copies of Windows, they pay substantially less than
>twice as much as if they only sold X/2 copies.
>
>This is a long ways from being exclusive to MS though -- nearly every
>sort of vendor around (from grocery stores on up) sells at lower prices
>when you buy larger volumes.
>
But no company ever could be sentenced it _has_ to sell a
product to somebody. If they don't want to do it - nobody
is able to force them!
There is evidence in many cases, see above.
>>This are not _stories_ - it's fact. Taken from our German
>>c't magazine, the only independent computer magazine over
>>here.
>>
>
>While C't is a fine magazine, simply being published in that magazine
>does NOT make something a fact.
>
It does - they do not publish "rumours", only facts which
can be proved at any time. They didn't win their good re-
putation with telling lies or rumours...
>>They cannot tell stories, because Microsoft is very
>>aggressive, if somebody reveals their daily "work" at the
>>marketing front.
>>
>>
>
>Rather the opposite -- Microsoft is big enough (and perceived as being
>much bigger than they really are) that there are very few companies they
>can/could sue with impunity. If they try to sue anybody short of a
>truly immense company, they know they'll be seen (and publicized) as a
>big bully beating up on a smaller company. Compared (for example) to an
>article in C't, suing would get them much greater negative publicity
>than the article possibly could by itself. The article would also become
>news in itself, so instead of being restricted to an obscure technical
>journal, it would instead be carried in all the news major newspapers,
>magazines, etc. In short, the situation becomes essentially a no-win
>for MS, no matter what they do, and the least damage to them is nearly
>always going to be to simply ignore almost everything they can.
>
Microsoft didn't follow your suggestions, at least not in
our country. There were several processes, yet...
Ok, Jerry. I think, we should close the Microsoft part of
this discussion - we may resume the result as:
You are pro Microsoft.
I am contra Microsoft.
None of my arguments will convince you, and none of yours
will convince me - we should use our time to do something
more useful than exchanging arguments which never will be
accepted by the other side. It's influenced by the ideals
and philosophies of you and me - maybe we never will find
a common base, 'cause the differences between our beliefs
are too large to build a bridge towards each other. There
is always a hand reaching out, but it will get weak after
a while, if nobody shakes it...
I respect your beliefs - even if I don't like the ways of
Microsoft - and I hope you respect my decision not to use
(with few exceptions per year) or purchase Microsoft pro-
ducts (no more).
BTW: I install Windows for friends and colleagues lots of
times each year. A full install of any Windows means much
more trouble and takes about twice the time I need for an
OS/2 installation with internet connection and all needed
stuff. I'm not a hermit far away from civilisation who is
contemplating about things he never came in touch with...
My words are based on _practical_ experience, not the re-
sults of being brainwashed by someone.
bv_schornak
>> Ok, no assembler was included in the IBM compilers which
>> were published _prior_ to VisualAge. I have forgotten to
>> mention Watcom, came to my mind while reading the linked
>> page - which is a part of IBMs software choice.
>
>
> FWIW, I bought Borland's C++ compiler for OS/2 many years ago, and it
> included an assembler, too. I used it often until it became clear to
> me that OS/2 was a dead-end path.
I didn't know that there was a Borland package for OS/2,
but it surely had its price. Even the cheapest compiler,
the Watcom package, could buy me 2 1/2 WARP 4 boxes, far
too much for my budget (meanwhile it's Open Source)...
>> another syntax. I prefer assemblers, which can be _used_
>> _without_ the _additional_ knowledge how to "speak" with
>> your compiler, so it may do the right things. I know the
>> opcodes I need - and that's sufficient to write code:
>>
>> <-file begins->
>>
>> .text
>>
>> OPCODES
>>
>> <-file ends->
>>
>> How about that?
>
>
> When I was doing assembly work under OS/2 many moons ago, I took
> advantage of the feature that it had to create templates (can't
> remember the actual OS/2 term for it). When I wanted to create a new
> assembly language project, I'd just drag and drop the template over to
> whatever directory I wanted to put it and it would automagically
> create the directory, the Makefile, and an outline of an assembly
> language program. It made things quite simple -- all I'd have to do
> was literally fill in the blanks. These days, I do the same thing
> under Linux or under Windows using a Perl script.
>
> You're a programmer -- why not write a program for yourself? ;-)
Templates: They are called "templates". There's a check-
box in the properties notebook of _each_ file, where you
can make it a template. Then you can drag & drop it onto
any folder or drive object to create a copy of it.
The ST-system (meanwhile version 5) is an attempt to re-
alize faster pogramming. There's a program skeleton with
the main frame window and one client window. The invoca-
tion and termination of the database engine is a part of
the skeleton, so the programmer only has to add the code
for the application. There are 150...200 functions which
replace C runtime calls and enhancements (e.g.: date and
time calculation and display). Most of them assembler, a
few functions for GUI stuff (e.g. a notebook skeleton or
a spinbutton control for several data types) are written
in C.
bv_schornak
Charles D. Quarles wrote:
>>I run OS/2 and have an AMD machine - "WiNTEL outside!"...
>>
>Okay. I run an AMD machine also.
>
>>And now? Should we meet somewhere and "shoot it out"? Not
>>what I want. Gentlemen agreement: I respect your position
>>and you respect mine - is that an offer? ;)
>>
>
>I do respect yours, Bernhard.
>
And vice versa! :)
>>Another huge difference between you country and mine. The
>>German people are bound to their tendency to obey (one of
>>the reasons why we had some "major problems" between 1933
>>and 1945), so even the most simple things are forged into
>>a thick book with laws and there are some of these books.
>>I am a member of a family, which always had some "rebels"
>>in the bloodline. I cannot really understand, why we need
>>a law for everything - if everybody feels responsible for
>>her / his deeds - these books could be _reduced_ to a few
>>pages...
>>
>>
>>
>Do not forget that Germans are one of our largest immigrant groups, though
>that does date back to the 19th Century.
>
I know. There are _some_ Schornaks in the USA, while I am
the only one here (our origin now belongs to Poland).
>>Patents and copyrights: I'm not too much involved in this
>>topic, so I know the difference, of course, but sometimes
>>mismatch the terms. There are pros _and_ contras for both
>>of them. Not the thing which did ever interest me so much
>>that I would have gathered all available info about it. I
>>don't even like to put my work under my copyrights. But I
>>have no other choice, if I want to keep the rights to use
>>my own stuff...
>>
>Why not? Copyrights are as natural as breathing. What is yours is yours
>and you must defend that which is yours.
>
Yes, true. We live in a specific reality, which we should
accept to be out there - our visions only are dreams of a
better life...
He probably didn't "invent" something. Brings Tesla to my
mind (a very interesting person)...
>>Patents on material things may be ok - but if it is about
>>knowledge? What do you think about the companies who sell
>>areas on the moon to private investors? Comes to my mind,
>>if I read about such things... ;)
>>
>
>Areas on the moon are like land areas on Earth. No logical or moral
>difference. Again, ideas=knowledge, cannot be patented or copyrighted. It
>is the physical product: invention or work of art that is patentable or
>copyrightable.
>
Where there is the question: Who's the owner of the moon?
Does she belong to one nation - or to mankind as abstract
term for _all_ human beings living on earth? Who entitles
us to divide her into claims and sell them?
>>>>My way to handle it is quite simple - as long as there is
>>>>some money in my pockets, I will spend or share it. If no
>>>>money is available, then I have to earn some. But - money
>>>>surely doesn't rule my life. I am living today - not in a
>>>>future with riches and no more work, because one fine day
>>>>I could reach this point - if I do a lot of work and save
>>>>all this money. I don't sell my life to the future - I do
>>>>live today, not tomorrow!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>True, but you do live tomorrow, because each tomorrow will be today
>>>as long as you live to see it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>And - today meanwhile is yesterday... Don't think, that I
>>take your words easy and only give some dumb answers. The
>>things you told me are in my mind while I am on the road.
>>Much time to think about everything - maybe I will change
>>the one or other point in my philosophy - if there are no
>>more changes, then I'm probably brainwashed or dead...
>>
>
>Actually, Bernhard, you sound mostly like a US libertarian. Keep on
>thinking and learning.
>
Should I take it as a compliment or a friendly hint?
Thinking and learning - I keep on trying! :)
Beth
> Hi Beth!
Hi Bernhard :)
> There was a serious discussion between some people, who were
> talking with me about the pros and contras of pure assembler
> versus my way of mixed code (C+assembler). As you could see,
> there was a kind of common base between Jeff and me and also
> between Betov and me. The difference with Randall's position
> is too large, but, even in this case - we both respect us as
> a person (at least - I hope, that he is treating this like I
> do).
>
> After the discussion ended, you started to append replies to
> the oldest postings in this discussion. That is: You replied
> to things which were explained, cleared and developed in the
> follow-ups - available for everybody who is able to read.
Simple explanation: I'd been away from group but was very interested
in the topic of the thread...and, well, I was catching up by reading
from the earliest threads forward (conversations don't make much sense
read backwards :)...I made the comments as I met the posts according
to the points in those posts...had I not been away temporarily and
made them at the time - which would have been my complete intention
were it possible - then it would have properly fitted into the
conversation...due to the lateness I had in arriving to the thread,
though, I can't turn back the clock so I presumed the saying "better
late than never"...clearly, though, you seem to disagree with this and
perhaps I shouldn't reply to old threads...but, then, at the same
time, you want me to reply to everything so if time passes then I'd
have to reply to older threads...how do I resolve both demands to your
satisfaction? I'd Love to do that but I fear that, simply, it's not
practical to do so...
> E.g. your 1326 lines posting and (short after that) the nice
> posting I was so happy to read. Unfortunately I started with
> the large posting, because the other one wasn't on my server
> while I looked into the NG. If I would have seen it, I never
> would have wasted 5 hours to read through this monster - nor
> would I ever have written a reply for another 2 hours.
Well, posts can arrive out-of-order due to the propogation method...I
can't dictate what shows up on your server when, unfortunately...I do
apologise if this happened to you but how can I know the order - and
your personal reaction to what you read according to that order -
prior to encountering it and reporting it back to me? Women's
intuition ain't that accurately pre-cognitive...
> Ok, things happen. "I'm used to be abused!" - if it is some-
> one who cheats me or someone who is using me to show, what a
> good worker, citicen or luminary s/he is. I was a little bit
> disappointed - of course - as I wrote my reply. Even if I am
> used to these things - I didn't reach the point (yet), where
> I would start to like it...
Well, there's a first for everything...I'm rarely called vain or
interested in only promoting myself because, often, I clearly make a
complete arse of myself defending the entirely ungrateful...but, hey,
how can you prove good intentions like this? If it were possible then
I should have managed it by now...but if you're making comments like
this after reading many of my posts then clearly there's no way to
convey this satisfactorily...
> First: What was your intention behind? You "pick out" one of
> the first postings of a discussion
Not really "picked out"...I'd only just encountered the thread and was
trying to "catch up" on things as I felt - at least, at the time -
that I had useful comments to make on the issue...
> - where meanwhile most of the positions were _developed_ -
Umm, what? If "positions are developed" then it's not possible to add
any more comment to them, even if I genuinely feel I have an extra
perspective to be added to the discussion? Wouldn't this "lock out"
anyone from joining a thread to make a new related point if it goes
passed the first few replies? Is this what's happening? Am I being
"locked out" for arriving too late after "positions had developed"?
> add some really disparaging
> statements about my position (in this case the philosophy of
> my way to reduce the _needed_ time to write applications, so
> the _few_ hours of my spare time are used the most efficient
> way),
There was absolutely no intention to "disparage" anything...I have the
personal opinion that the claims of such a philosophy "always" reduces
development time in comparison to ASM are exaggerated...I wanted to
express that and explain why I believe it to be the case so that,
perhaps, others might appreciate what is, yes, a non-conventional
viewpoint on the subject...surely, you're not expecting that because
we agree on many subjects that all of my views will always correspond
fully with yours?
Note, I do have a mildly schizophrenic personality...not literally but
I acknowledge that I'm really a character of extremes which are really
fighting an internal conflict with each other...what comes out tends
to be the balanced result but not always...sometimes, the blunt
speak-my-mind element comes through...sometimes, the element that
always maintains perfect diplomacy and neutrality comes to the
fore...yes, this wild variation has often caused me problems with
people not able to resolve such a conflicting personality...it's taken
me a while to get used to this myself and realise that it is actually
advantageous in the wider picture, even if, in close quarters, it can
be a rough ride to try to follow what the hell is going on inside my
head at any particular time (it's not any better inside my brain to do
this either, I assure you :)...
So, perhaps, the less diplomatic element was speaking and didn't
phrase the disagreement in the correct tone to make it clear that it
was just an expression of my opinion...with your comments about Randy
earlier, then I feel I need to totally assure you that you're entirely
respected as a person...of course, it goes without question in my
case...although, perhaps, not without question until you've negotiated
my personality sufficiently to know this as fact for yourself...how
ironic, it might actually be because I've come to think of you as
"friend" that I've reverted to the less polished version of myself
that friends who I see every day automatically can comprehend the
weirdness of it all...and because we haven't actually met, the things
which would be clear aren't but, instinctually, I started thinking in
"friend" terms and automatically stop feeling the need to constantly
justify every action to a friend...well, you don't usually need to do
that with friends who do know what you're like...sorry, things got a
bit muddled there and caused a major confusion...
> then post it (twice),
Did I? Oh, well, that's got to just be a plain mistake...is it a
duplicated post or did I actually write the same thing twice? If the
latter then I can only think that I started one reply, had to go
elsewhere and saved the draft...then returned, forgot I'd made a reply
and composed a new one - naturally saying roughly the same things as
that was the original reason to write the first reply - and then sent
that...only to later decide that I should catch up on the draft posts
and then sent the original one, accidentally repeating myself...
I have warned before that I can be a major, major scatterbrain at
times...I think you've just experienced why I make that warning
because being that way does make me do completely dumb things like
this at times...well, I was born a blonde, even if I've now gone
dark...it's some temporary dumb blonde influence...hehehe :)
> and - because I wrote a note you obviously did not like - start
> to attack me personally, in a very condescending tone.
Well, I can't always be angelic and smiling and perfectly
diplomatic...I slipped, it was an "off" day...I assure there's
absolutely no malice or anything...I just must have taken it badly at
the time or something...also, I have been in and out of the group
that, well, I'm not really following it properly at the moment I don't
think...
> See - I don't want to hear _any_ apologies, excuses or what-
> ever else.
Oops, too late...I've already apologised...ummm...errr...sorry?? No,
oops...I'm not supposed to apologise, am I? Ummm, how about
expressions of regret? It's not quite apologising nor giving
excuses...oh, hell...I've put my foot in it and there's no way out of
this now...
> Things which were done are history - there's _no_
> way to undo them - any whining doesn't make it better. It is
> forgiven soon after I read it - there is a fat checkmark be-
> hind the lines.
Sorry, what do you mean by "fat checkmark behind the lines"? I don't
quite get what you mean there...is this a German saying that's not
translating or am I just being dumb again and not getting something
that's blatantly clear?
> Nevertheless, it would be a good practice to
> waste some thoughts about the way we treat other people. The
> question to ourselves: "How would I react, if this was me?".
Not to be funny or anything...but to actually try an honest answer,
I'd probably make, perhaps, a small sniping comment in return and / or
just laugh it off...oh, that always works with me...make your insults
funny and you're instantly forgiving as you insult me...I just adore
witty remarks that I'll always excuse a wicked sense of humour, even
if it's ripping shreds into me at the time :)
> It's not about trying to "undo" a deed - it's about learning
> how to avoid it the next time...
Indeed; Although, appreciate, I didn't realise there was a problem
until you've said this now...but, please, explain exactly where I went
wrong here and I will avoid it in future...I just don't see how I've
done anything differently or unusually, except that, yes, I was late
in arriving to the thread so the whole thing was automatically
out-of-synch (perhaps out-of-date in places) by the time they
appeared...
> Please - take some minutes and think about your _reasons_ to
> attack my personal beliefs. That is what you _did_ in _both_
> postings! If you come to a conclusion, I would be interested
> in an answer to this question - regardless of the results!
I was challenging the status quo on this arugment that ASM will,
somehow, take twenty seven years longer than HLL coding...it _my_
personal belief that this whole line is exaggerated and has
misconceptions in places...note that the "attack" was on the general
belief, not you specifically...you share that belief with others and
that's fine...I don't share it and I was trying to just explain why
and counter the myths attached to it...sorry, but often when you come
straight out and shatter myths which people have accepted as fact then
it's not always comfortable...now you might appreciate why some other
people really do get very viperous replying to my "myth shattering"
comments...now seeing the other side of my dual personality, perhaps
you can see why I get this also schizophrenic response in return that
some, like Scriptkid, declare Love...and others say "I don't see a
single thing wrong in what Beth says"...but then others, like Annie,
are hounding my every comment attempting to get that opportunity to
blow me out of the water...others demanding my head on a stick...it's
a consequence of being someone who always challenges the status quo
and doesn't hesitate to point out inconsistencies I might find...when
this is on your side promoting your beliefs, it can seem almost
angelic how I cut through with "the truth"...when on the opposite end,
I come out as the very devil's whore herself trying to destroy the
foundations of their world view...
Telling things as you see them can lose you friends as easily as it
makes them...one or two posts and we were getting on well...one or two
posts with Annie and she insists on becoming my arch-nemesis or
something...I do Hope people can see that I never bear grudges or hold
malice or have any desire but to make good friends and acquaintances
with anyone and everyone...this is who am I and it's taken a while to
resolve that in myself that it'll take time to re-orientate it to any
comments requesting instant personality change...
> Next: You append your comments with hundreds and hundreds of
> lines to _some_ postings. People read it, think about it and
> write a reply, if there were questions about the contents of
> your posting. Don't you feel responsible for your words - so
> you don't need to answer their questions? Did you ever think
> about the time, other people need to read your postings and,
> additional, write a reply? Wouldn't it be fair, if you write
> on top of your postings: "You may reply - but you will never
> get an answer!"? So everyone can chose to waste some time or
> do something more useful? Either you talk _with_ the people,
> or you waste much time while appending _monologues_ to their
> postings! Quantity beats Quality?
Have ever considered the opposite view? Think about all those posts
I've written over a number of years that no-one's replied to, despite
the effort I put into trying to make a useful response...oh, yes, I
get this too and probably more commonly than anyone else around here
(check the archives but I don't think that's an at all paranoid
observation)...yet, in complete variance to the effort expended by
me...
But, okay, I was away from the group and _exactly because_ I always
want to reply to everything, there simply was practically too much to
ever catch up on in the limited time I have to do so...but, okay, I'm
the devil's whore specifically out to get at just you for no apparent
reason and in total contravention of how I've consistently been
friendly and supportive to you over innumerable posts...fine...that
makes sense...
I mean, with all due respect, how can I win here at all if people are
going to be so sensitive of everything? One word out of place and I've
got to now "think over what I said" for its deep-rooted psychological
meaning or something...I don't have the time, wasn't even around at
the time and couldn't get to the post to reply satisfactorily and I've
got to think of _your_ time being wasted when if you added up all of
my similarly wasted time where I equally get no responses or merely
just a string of insults instead, then I can easily justify "whinging"
(nice choice of words...tells me so much about how you view genuine
efforts to be helpful and friendly...just not good enough for you, is
it?) a lot more than most here can...
I reckon you're a cool guy and you have my respect but, please, don't
make me wear kid gloves all the time or something...this is
USENET...you should find your friendly treatment by me as nigh-on
miraculous around here...perhaps I should have been slightly more
harsh with you so you wouldn't act so sensitive and defensive all the
time...we don't need to "think over our words" every time we stupidly
slip up on a word somewhere...yes, we need to think over things
generally from time to time but you ask for this every second post...
Sorry, I want to have this all go well and everything but, well, you
grab every little word and amplify it into a "crisis" and conflict of
personality...do you need to always be in conflict? Because, really,
you look like you're almost seeking it out...looking for
flaws...wanting things to go wrong and fall apart...well, I won't let
something like that happen...but it's damn hard when you constantly
blow up everything into a great "drama and crisis of epic
proportions"...what did I do? Not agree with your opinion and make a
late reply because I was away from the group for a few days? I mean,
sorry, but things happen...do I have to make apologies and constantly
justify my existence in every reply to you because you've got an odd
"deathwish" for things to go wrong all the time? You do know that
people who look for problems like that invariably tend to create them
and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy...luckily for you, I
recognise this sort of thing and won't let it come to that...ever had
something like this happen to you before? You felt things were wrong
and then, all of sudden, they actually become so? Well, it wouldn't be
surprising when you walk around with almost a "deathwish" for things
to go dreadfully wrong...I apologise for the psycho-analysis, as I
know it isn't always too comfortable but best I say something now than
let you repeat this sort of thing many times...
> Last: It would be nice, if you reduce your "tirades" against
> McDonald's a little bit. You will not convince those who eat
> there to stop it,
Actually, I always ate there once...at least, I never considered
boycotting it or anything...hard to believe now, perhaps, but I was
once the darling of the establishment on that sort of thing...and it
was a "tirade" like this that pointed out to me just how I'd not been
questioning the things around me...how people do things, what goes on,
what the consequences of our actions are...that "tirade" re-educated
me to "think different" and, as you can see, it's stuck...and I am
forever grateful for the realisation and exposure that "tirade" gave
to me...one way to repay such a debt is to further pass it on...
It might not be relevent to the "enlightened" like yourself...but this
isn't just about _us_ realsing it, this is something everyone deserves
to realise that, yes, they _can_ question it...that other things _can_
exist...that the world doesn't collapse - in fact, it may even
improve - if someone in the crowd actually tells the King that he's
naked and stops pretending that his clothes as wonderous, as they
themselves live in poverty...I don't necessarily have everything right
(actually, a certainty that something's wrong somewhere ;) but it's
more the gift of making people realise that they are worth
something...that they can think independently...that the Kings of the
world are just men, as flawed as the rest of us...this was a gift that
a "tirade" once gave me...I had thought it was correct to pass that
gift on further, if at all possible...but, oh, I see..._you_ know all
about it so everyone else can just suffer to grant you the rest and
silence you'd like...
> and you do not need to convince people who
> already don't eat there. It's probably not the best idea, if
> you talk about this topic for 200 or 300 lines in your reply
> to a posting about programming in C + asm.
Maybe not...but where else can I try? Speaker's corner? Like anyone
actually listens there...they just come to laugh at the latest nutter
making a fool of themselves...
Or is that it? I'm just making a fool of myself? No-one here cares nor
wants to know anything I say anymore...I haven't heard an even
marginally kind word of late...broken record, is it? Raving psychopath
because I care...and you no longer care to hear that I care...not
fashionable to make these points because they aren't "in vogue" today?
Yeah, well...you keep to your oh-so-bloody-sensitiveness and ignore
how you're happily making me feel quite utterly worthless as a human
being...thanks, that just so cements that my life has now completely
fallen apart in pretty much all respects...can't even find one
friendly word anywhere...
Look, I wasn't even saying that C and ASM is wrong or anything...I
just wanted to point out that the "extra time that ASM takes" is often
exaggerated by some people...really, have I qualified for this reply
truely? Well, perhaps I have...miserable little Beth raving insanely,
no one wants to be friends with her...little weirdo...twisted
hell-bitch...
Oh, well, then it really must be me then...independent confirmation
indicates fact...might as well get used to my own company and become a
hermit...the gimmick of weirdness has worn off, no one was interested
in anything more than the gimmick...it's gone...I might as well follow
it...charming...thanks for reminding me where I keep my despair at
this world...I can go into a nice depression spiral and have Annie
just laugh at me because she looks so bloody perfect next to the
weirdo...
Why should I bother anymore? I only bothered for other's potential
benefit but if you don't reckon there's any, what's the fudging point
of me wasting my time just to, yet again, act as the big round target
for some psychological need for the female victim...well, here I
am...victim #3456...I give up, I surrender...you win...
[ snip ]
> Doesn't need to be done the way you have chosen.
True; It can be nothing instead, can't it?
> [Send me an Angel - Scorpions]
Yeah, well, don't look at me...I'm the devil's whore...the complete
opposite...
Enjoy yourself,
Beth...
bv_schornak
Frank Kotler wrote:
> Hehe. That's why I sometimes seem to be ignoring you and Ross :) It
> *does* get to be a lot, at times. For Nasm, you *ought* to be able to
> just downoad the source and "make -f Mkfiles/Makefile.os2". I don't
> know if that actually still works without problems, but it's
> "supposed" to. If not, send me the error log - doubt I'll be able to
> help, but...
It should work with Borland C++. I will try to "convert"
the makefile for GCC / GNU's make - might be of help for
some other people, too. I come back, when it's finished!
> But that's only if you "wanna" try Nasm. If C+Gas is working for you,
> C+Nasm isn't going to be that much different. It's supposed to be an
> "option" if you want it...
Would be a good exercise to understand the code which is
posted here... ;)
> (sounds like two guys - speaking of "guys" - Mikael Timofeevich
> Kalashnikov - tank commander, wounded fighting the Nazis - dreamed up
> his rifle in the hospital recuperating - still alive, AFAIK)
Working on the next generation of "better" tools? ;)
London Luvver
Beth Stone wrote:
>in close quarters, it can be a rough ride to try to follow
>what the hell is going on inside my head at any particular time
I'd like to be in close quarters, get inside your head, and
be taken on that rough ride.
>my life has now completely fallen apart in pretty much all respects...
>can't even find one friendly word anywhere...
Not to worry, luv, I have many friendly words for you.
>miserable little Beth raving insanely, no one wants to be friends
>with her...little weirdo...twisted hell-bitch...
>Yeah, well, don't look at me...I'm the devil's whore...
You sound like my kind of woman. What area of the city are you in,
and when and where can we get together?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Beth
> > Bernhard wrote:
> > > See it this way: There is only _one_ C++ standard, which
> > > is kept high by all C++ compilers. And there is no fight
> > > like we have it in the assembler range! If this would be
> > > the case, C++ wouldn't be the current #1 for development
> > > environments!
>
> Hmmm...
> Guess that's why my Borland C++, GCC, and VC++ programs
> all cross-compile so well... (I'm being facetious here).
> Actually, I can't even get a Gas program under Linux to compile
> under Gas on QNX (i.e., the HLA compiler output from Bison).
> If only it were standard!
>
> OTOH, what would be the use of have a dozen different MASM
> clones? Sure, a free one would be nice.
[ Sure would come in handy for HLA distribution, yeah? ;) ]
> But the cool thing about assembly language is exactly that it
> is *not* standardized.
Yup, like I said in the other post, if someone says "ASM is
non-portable" - or we can now add "ASM is not standardised" - then
simply reply "yes, exactly...that is the _entire point_"...
It's not a crime to be different (at least, it never should be in any
civilised nation :)...it's not inherently "wrong" to be trying out one
of those other ways of skinning a cat...sometimes, revolution is
necessary...other times, yes, preserve the status quo (that came from
the last revolution, lest we forget ;) to maintain what it brought to
you...
Is evolution the mutations - those that are different - or is it all
in the "selfishness" of genes to preserve their status quo for as long
as possible - those who seek uniformity? Truth is, it needs a little
of both...unrestrained mutation all over the place would fall into
chaos and anarchy, no organism "compatible" with any other (like
horses and donkies - their genetic difference on the verge of becoming
incompatible - are only able to spawn infertile offspring, that itself
cannot ever continue that "family line")...but utterly strict
uniformity - no mutations or mistakes at all - would halt evolution
dead and all it would take is one radical change in the environment
that can't be dealt with and, again, it's the end of the line...
Things progress _because_ there is difference and conflict...life _is_
dynamism...if it completely stops then it's dead...but, to either
extreme, things fall apart...it's in the _balance_ that things prosper
and flourish...extremeism, of _any_ kind, neglects the opposite number
and the flower whithers and dies...
Some doors have "push" written on them and some doors have "pull" (and
yet others hinge both ways or are padlocked firmly shut...2 objects, 2
possible states...that's 2^2 = 4 possibilities, why does everyone just
assume two "right" and "wrong" possibilities for everything
automatically? It actually defies basic Boolean logic to think in such
black and white terms)...
The basic assumption here is that "non-portable" or "non-conforming"
means "evil" or something...why? ASM is, indeed, non-portable and
non-conforming...but, then, having real _Liberty_ to choose is like
that...again, many talk about "freedom" but only a few seem actually
able to recognise its calling card when they see it...do you know that
you've been "free" that you can actually comment on what it is? With
the new Matrix movie coming out soon (well, maybe already out where
you are :), it's obviously just some fun entertainment, of course, but
it weaves it with the serious message: Can you really be sure that
what you know is actually what is?
Push or pull...black or white...one or zero...
The red pill or the blue pill? Elightenment or darkness? It is your
choice...
> This gives us the ability to quit copying somebody else's work
> and develop something truly novel. I seem to recall you felt
> that this process was a good idea.
Indeed, shouldn't this be the entire philosophy of "specific
assembly"? To embrace and encourage difference and innovation? From
the above rant, though, perhaps people might see why I would encourage
rene's innovation totally...but, well, it really should also allow the
more conservative forms like libraries and using other people's
code...it's _just as bad_ to have some perpetual riot of unrestrained
anarchy and chaos, as it is to have a world of robotic cloned
automatons utterly uniform and indentical...
Unlike most, rene, you're throwing all your effort and support towards
Liberty and innovation and difference...that's actually a pretty rare
thing in a world where company executives will only back something
that's a clone of the last success...not realising that there's one
property that's inherently uncloneable that all our DOOMs and Beatles
and Matrixes (and any other "revolution" from the "norm"...the "good
mutant" that moves evolution forwards)...they were first, they were
original, they were unique, they were different...you can't clone
this...if you try then all you'll find is a poor, bland, unsuccessful
copy...as they all try to be successful by stealing others formulas,
you'll find that it just simply degrades each time...just like making
a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy, etc....
But completely denying the traditional means - separating yourself off
as an entirely different species - seems an unwise move...you should
include libraries but, yes, feel free to preach and sermon of their
"evils"...include it under protest that you think it's unnecessary and
backwards...that opinion has more than a grain of truth to it...but if
you're recruiting robots then you have to slowly reprogram them to
realise what "freedom" and "not following your program" actually
means...
[ This talk of robots reminds me of a Dexter's Laboratory cartoon I
was watching, where Dexter decides to give his robots all
"freedom"...a brilliantly funny but also insightful joke from a kids'
cartoon...Dexter orders his robots to leave the lab and "be free! Be
free, my robots!"...so the robots all uniformly move in total unison
out of the Lab towards "freedom" and just sit in the middle of the
road...
Waiting...
Waiting...
Waiting...
Along comes a big truck and runs them over, crushing them into a
million bits...
Brilliant comic timing with the long wait and then the truck appearing
from nowhere for a classic bit of slapstick humour...yes, just a funny
kids' cartoon...but, underneath that, just how multi-layered and
challenging (and educational) to their young little minds can you get?
Why did Dexter think it was "good" to give them "freedom" when they
never asked for it? What sort of "freedom" was he expecting? Why
didn't the robots relish their "freedom"? Why did they just sit there?
What does "freedom" itself actually mean?
And what's the moral message behind Dexter being so enthusiastic to
massage his own ego demanding his robots have "freedom" when, in fact,
what happens as a consequence is that the robots are "killed" by a big
truck?
_Everything_, you see, has a moral message inside it...everything is
just one more piece of the giant universal jigsaw...from the mouths of
babes can come pearls of wisdom...
What does this tell us if we contrast this simple cartoon joke with
how people actually acted and reacted to the Iraqi war? What did _we_
mean by "Liberation"? Why, when granted that "Liberation", do the
Iraqis all seem to want their new government to be fanatical Islamic
extremeists? Like Dexter, what sort of "freedom" were we expecting?
What do we mean by "freedom", especially when - given that "freedom" -
the Iraqi people decide they don't want Western-style "Liberty" and
then Bush (almost comically, were it not harsh reality) declares "you
can have whoever you want...but, no, not those people you're actually
asking for (any colour you like, as long as it's black)"...the Iraqi
people needed "Liberation" from Saddam Hussein - the only person who'd
try to suggest otherwise would be Saddam himself - but is the _means_
by which it happened more for their benefit or was it for ours?
Perhaps a little of both...perhaps neither...it's not my intention to
tell you what to think about this...just to point out that, yes, you
_can_ and _should_ think it all over _for yourselves_, _independently_
what it really all meant...
What it _still_ means as our coalition still haven't fully restored
everything yet - how long are we talking about here, _without_ even
the most basic necessities like clean water? - and the Iraqi peoples
"freedom" is being told who to vote for...if this were a Western
democratic country then the act of _enforcing_ people to vote a
particular way or denying them a candidate that they want would be a
severe _criminal_ action with heavy penalties for even uttering that
they can't vote for who they like, let alone actually physically stop
it from happening...next time you go to vote, check if there's one of
those posters which details election offences (not sure about other
countries but it's _illegal_ for there not to be one of these posters
on display in the UK, which explains exactly what constitutes a
serious election offence :)...any form of pressure to rig an election
voids the decision and makes it an unfair election...it's clear why
this is utterly undemocratic...sure, you might not like their decision
but that's the very nature of democracy...the minority always has to
suffer the majority's will...
Mind you, not that this is the first time that Bush has demonstrated
his inability to understand how democracy works and act in ways that
are jepordising - if not utterly violating - the principles of
democracy...and that's being kind to presume it's merely stupidly
rather than cold, calculating malice at work...don't defend Bush from
the "stupidity" accusations because that's got to be his only excuse
(and potential legal defence)...a plea of ignorance, "mental
inability" or even insanity might be the very thing he actually
_wants_ to depend upon, if he's ever made accountable for his
actions... ]
> From the user's perspective, you get assemblers that are simple
> (and don't require as much effort to learn) like FASM, or assemblers
> that are complex and powerful like MASM and HLA. The end user
> can pick which way they want to go based on how much effort they
> want to put into learning the assembler versus how much effort they
> will have to put into using it down the road.
Yup...and I'm all for that, which is why I throw in behind them
_all_...and, really, it's not any sort of "keeping the peace" but
entirely accurate that each one has advantages that the others
lack...coincidentally, they've all fallen into different slots,
catering for different needs...so, preference and philosophy aside,
it's still right to throw behind them all in different contexts
because, yes, all the "main players" have their own specialities...
But I think personally that this is all good and to be expected from a
"first wave" of potential movement towards some sort of "assembly
rebirth"...in a sense, it's many parties making their "manifesto" for
what should be present in the future of ASM...as time goes on, a "next
generation" will take up these beginnings and refine them...combining
what is now in separate tools together...
To me, at least, everything is as should be expected...of course, if
there is a bright future for ASM ahead then - yeah, sure - I'd Love it
if it were to unfold overnight...but, well, it's natural for things to
take time...everything seems as it should be (including all the
in-fighting too...the only danger there is personal motivations
getting in the way of wider community progress)...
Beth :)
Beth
> BTW: Yes I do realize that there was an implied "on intel boxen",
but
> too many people are unaware that there is a world beyond there 8086
> derived machines.
Oh, be fair...they probably _are_ aware that there is a world beyond
their 8086 derived machiens...they just simply don't care...yes,
slightly flippant and ever-so-arrogant but nevertheless accurate, I
think...
I've used plenty of non-x86 machines to appreciate what you're saying,
though...just x86 derived PCs have basically assimilated all desktop
machines in a way that could even make the Borg bright green with
jealousy...which I've never been too impressed with, really (Apple and
Motorola, in my opinion, certainly deserve the crown more than the
current King x86 does ;)...but things are as things are...so I work
with what I've been given, so to speak...and reserve the whinging and
mourning for quiet, private moments of reflective nostaligia...or, of
course, in replies to posts like yours, where it's "on-topic" to moan
and groan about how things were better in the olden days and such
like...hehehe ;)
Beth :)
Beth
retracted...you just didn't choose a very good time to start whinging
at me, as I wasn't fully happy and smiley at the time, anyway...that's
the second time I've done that to you and I sincerely
apologise...you've just got a knack of saying just what I don't need
to hear when I don't need to hear it...which, of course, is _my_
problem and not yours but it gets me all worked up that you get such
biting replies to them...
Don't take it personally, though...my little brother also has a
similar knack of saying exactly that which will annoy me, almost every
time he opens his mouth...but, similarily, I don't not Love him any
less for that...as you put it, "it happens"...I think, in fact, it's
probably for much the same reasons...that is, siblings are as similar
genetically as any two people can get (closer, in fact, than parent to
child, interestingly)...and siblings always fight almost _because_
they are too close as people and in too close proximity to each
other...well, I think something similar might be happening here
because of us often being quite close on our basic opinions of things
generally...like one of those North / South magnets, we should
probably be pointing the opposite sides at each other, not the same or
the similarity just forces it apart...the reverse side of the
"opposites attract" coin, so to speak...
So, I find myself in the very weird position of almost always agreeing
with what you have to say but finding that the two of us are always
bickering back and forth between each other...which makes little
logical sense...but, well, as you say, "it happens"...I have nothing
against you at all...actually, quite the opposite...but for some odd
reason, it just never seems to come out that way...*sigh* bloody
magnets, eh? hehehe :)
Beth :)