From: rhyde on 28 Aug 2007 10:44 On Aug 27, 6:39 am, Betov <be...(a)free.fr> wrote: > "CodeMonk" <jas...(a)yahoo.com> écrivait news:4Pidna0LMOFGVU_bnZ2dnUVZ_r- > dn...(a)comcast.com: > > > > > "Betov" <be...(a)free.fr> wrote in message > >news:XnF999984324A0BEbetovfreefr(a)212.27.60.37... > > >> _Facts_. No "opinion, on such points. Facts are that nesting > >> mono-files inside the executables has been a complete success. > > > By which set of metrics? > > By looking at the productivity of the users. You talk about the "productivity" of your users. Given that you don't have any sort of library code for your users to use, given that your assembly development system doesn't support the easy use of libraries (and "cut & paste" is *not* a productive way to do libraries), you're not really in a good position to talk about the productivity of your product. Dude, one of the *few* things that software engineering has *always* gotten right is that having a decent library makes people *far* more productive. Come back and talk to us about the productivity of your users when you can provide good support for library use in RosAsm. hLater, Randy Hyde
From: rhyde on 28 Aug 2007 10:49 On Aug 27, 12:22 pm, Betov <be...(a)free.fr> wrote: > "rh...(a)cs.ucr.edu" <rh...(a)cs.ucr.edu> écrivait news:1188239317.952339.16160 > @i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > > > having gone done the path of a proprietary source file format > > myself (The LISA assembler, some 30 years ago), I can say without > > hesitation, from experience, that this path is a mistake. > > Right: Keep sure that any step you could do would be in the > wrong path, clown, as proven by the complete failure of your > LISA adventures and HLA adventures. Well, as long as you make > people laugh... Yes, LISA was a failure. However, as a commercial product it *sold* about three orders of magnitude more copies than you have RosAsm users. Nevertheless, it got its pants beaten off by products that used standard text files as their source code form. Yup, LISA was a complete failure and I headed down the wrong path with it. That is true. The funny part is that you're headed down that *exact same path* with RosAsm. Too bad you can't learn from other's mistakes (too bad you can even learn from your own mistakes). In my defense, the world was a little different 30 years ago than it is today. You've had 30 years of microcomputer software development tools to look at that I didn't (granted, I *could* have looked at the Minicomputer and Mainframe development tools, as my competitors obviously did). It's sad that you've made this same mistake at this late date in the game. hLater, Randy Hyde
From: Betov on 28 Aug 2007 11:00 "rhyde(a)cs.ucr.edu" <rhyde(a)cs.ucr.edu> �crivait news:1188311924.038766.63820 @r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com: > Then why not add static linking to your assembler? You may have no > reason to use it, but it will certainly please some Because i am not used to work for implementing stupidities, even when when people want it, clown. Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Betov on 28 Aug 2007 11:03 "rhyde(a)cs.ucr.edu" <rhyde(a)cs.ucr.edu> �crivait news:1188312097.871982.69450 @r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com: > IOW, you forgot you wouldn't be able to get away with swindling people > with your outrageous claims? Said by the clown who had no choice but to steal FASM, because he is unable to write any Assembler. Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Betov on 28 Aug 2007 11:07
"rhyde(a)cs.ucr.edu" <rhyde(a)cs.ucr.edu> �crivait news:1188312280.514401.119970(a)q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com: > You talk about the "productivity" of your users. Given that you don't > have any sort of library code for your users to use, given that your > assembly development system doesn't support the easy use of libraries > (and "cut & paste" is *not* a productive way to do libraries), you're > not really in a good position to talk about the productivity of your > product. Thanks for sharing your interresting opinions, clown. :)) Betov. < http://rosasm.org > |