Iczelion's tutorials revisited.
in [ASM]
|
From: randyhyde@earthlink.net on 1 Sep 2005 10:47 Herbert Kleebauer wrote: > Betov wrote: > > Herbert Kleebauer <klee(a)unibwm.de> écrivait news:4314E886.9D85E836 > > I think you are only joking, but as long as there are no smilies, > I will take you seriously and will not let you escape so easily. > > > > Sorry, but i am not yet completely senile: > > Did you read a single sentence of what I wrote? Often, he does not. Have you noticed this too? > > * Modularity: Yes, you can reuse Code if you want bloat. > > ????? Please give more details. What he is saying is that RosAsm doesn't support this kind of modularity, so he has to make it sound negative to define his own turf. > > > > * Standard thingies: Unfortunately there is no such a > > thing in any modern OS. [and don't joke me with the > > Console Functions]. > > ????? Please give more details. Rene has never figured out how to use standard I/O under Windows. > Now you are really joking ?!? The DOS version is: > > move eax,pointer_to_text > call MessageBox > > There is absolutely no difference for Win32 or DOS. All you > have to do is, to push the parameters onto the stack or store > them into registers and then call the subroutine. Your > "USER32.MessageBoxA" is nothing but a subroutine within the > address space of your program and executed in user mode > (and isn't an OS call at all). Now you can argue, that > you don't had to write the function, Microsoft has done > this for you. But maybe I also hadn't to write the DOS > MessageBox function, a friend could have done this for me. Such as the UCR Standard Library for 80x86 programmers. > > You are arguing exactly like Randy: all you need is > a powerful library, then assembly programing is trivial. Yeah, such as the UCR Standard Library for 80x86 assembly language programmers (it's written for DOS, btw). > > I must admit, that I only know very few Win32 functions, > but as far as I know, MessageBox is the only graphical > output which doesn't require a RegisterClass, so your > example isn't typical. Nothing, however, requires you to write code for a GUI. Win32 supports the creation of console apps. They are simple and easy to use (especially when backed up by a few library routines, such as those in the HLA Standard Library). You can concentrate on learning assembly with these guys, rather than trying to figure out how to write GUI apps under Win32 (which is a completely different process altogether). Cheers, Randy Hyde
From: randyhyde@earthlink.net on 1 Sep 2005 10:51 Betov wrote: > Herbert Kleebauer <klee(a)unibwm.de> écrivait news:4316005D.167ECC72 > @unibwm.de: > > > Did you read a single sentence of what I wrote? > > Yes. > > > >> 1) You say that Win32 Asm is not Asm, because it calls > >> to Api Functions. > > > > No, I said that I don't call it assembly "programming" > > This is your problem: What you "call assembly programming" > is _your_ vision of Asm Programming, and your opinion, on > this point has no interrest, at all, as it is irrational, HaHaHaHaHa! This is the *funniest* thing I have read in a long time. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! It's okay for *Rene* to insist that people believe in *his* vision of what assembly language ought to be like, but other people's visions are of no interest. Too bad Rene hasn't figured out that almost no one shows the slightest interest in his own vision. > > > I rarely talk about "learning assembly programming". Unless, of course, you're busy trashing someone who develops pedagogical material to help people learn assembly language (witness the response to this post you're about to write :-) ). > > Assembly is not a language for learning Assembly, mind you. ???? I suppose you'd rather they learned assembly using C? Cheers, Randy Hyde
From: anonymous on 1 Sep 2005 16:23 Hi all, been watching the last couple of days, decided to join in with the fire fighters (?) in the bushfight ;) I shall come with these statements: first of all to my understanding portability is merely illusion! second, show me the Win32 C program that isn't Win32Asm! third, Assembly is universal, it doesn't change from OS to OS (only from hardware to hardware)! Fourth, there are no _standard_ StdIn/StdOut/StdErr calls between OSes! Fifth, programming resides in taking advantage of the functions one has in order to do useful things! 1. Portability is illution, because portability is based on library calls, with different libraries for different OSes. 2. If the programmer creates a program in Win32 C (which is also in Win32Asm) and that can be referred to as "programming" then why can win32Asm programmer not write the same program and that be called "programming" as well? 3. The true assembly are the same regardless of os, only address and method varies when addressing OS calls. 4. StdIn/etc. are just numbers/ constants from 0 through 2. The calls to use them are different in every OS. In C however this is hidden under standard library calls. 5. This means using or not using OS calls or library calls is equivalently programming, the assembly mnemonics are merely the programming library of the processor. Now for a bit about myself, I'm a beginner, the biggest program I ever finished is probably not more than 2kB. I found it is extremely easy learning assembly language (!) however, the syntax of assemblers was semi-hard to learn, and learning how to output stuff was hard. The syntax was semi-hard to learn because everyone uses a different syntax, and most available source code available (at least at that time) is/was 16bit which has many variables in syntax. Learning how to output stuff was hard because most assembly tutorials deal merely with the language and not with OS calls, besides understanding the Win32.hlp can be a pain in the *** for a beginner, because one tries to comprehend it instead of just "porting and pasting" the thing, and filling in the holes. Besides all the constants replaced with names were really difficult for me to absorb because the Win32.hlp doesn't display the numerical equivalent. I never properly understood programs until I learned assembly for my calculator. In my oppinion tutorials should never use predefined constants or predefined macros in the first couple of tutorials and then if they wish to use them, the tutorial should describe and explain them, so the reader is included in the making of these predefined things. How would a beginner ever understand something predefined, when "pre" is "pre" as in before the first tutorial/lesson?
From: anonymous on 1 Sep 2005 16:25 Hi all, been watching the last couple of days, decided to join in with the fire fighters (?) in the bushfight ;) I shall come with these statements: first of all to my understanding portability is merely illusion! second, show me the Win32 C program that isn't Win32Asm! third, Assembly is universal, it doesn't change from OS to OS (only from hardware to hardware)! Fourth, there are no _standard_ StdIn/StdOut/StdErr calls between OSes! Fifth, programming resides in taking advantage of the functions one has in order to do useful things! 1. Portability is illution, because portability is based on library calls, with different libraries for different OSes. 2. If the programmer creates a program in Win32 C (which is also in Win32Asm) and that can be referred to as "programming" then why can win32Asm programmer not write the same program and that be called "programming" as well? 3. The true assembly are the same regardless of os, only address and method varies when addressing OS calls. 4. StdIn/etc. are just numbers/ constants from 0 through 2. The calls to use them are different in every OS. In C however this is hidden under standard library calls. 5. This means using or not using OS calls or library calls is equivalently programming, the assembly mnemonics are merely the programming library of the processor. Now for a bit about myself, I'm a beginner, the biggest program I ever finished is probably not more than 2kB. I found it is extremely easy learning assembly language (!) however, the syntax of assemblers was semi-hard to learn, and learning how to output stuff was hard. The syntax was semi-hard to learn because everyone uses a different syntax, and most available source code available (at least at that time) is/was 16bit which has many variables in syntax. Learning how to output stuff was hard because most assembly tutorials deal merely with the language and not with OS calls, besides understanding the Win32.hlp can be a pain in the *** for a beginner, because one tries to comprehend it instead of just "porting and pasting" the thing, and filling in the holes. Besides all the constants replaced with names were really difficult for me to absorb because the Win32.hlp doesn't display the numerical equivalent. I never properly understood programs until I learned assembly for my calculator. In my oppinion tutorials should never use predefined constants or predefined macros in the first couple of tutorials and then if they wish to use them, the tutorial should describe and explain them, so the reader is included in the making of these predefined things. How would a beginner ever understand something predefined, when "pre" is "pre" as in before the first tutorial/lesson? ;-) Smileys to all!!! let's reinvent the happy face!! Greetz, :-D Jakob Wrigley
From: JGCASEY on 1 Sep 2005 16:47
anonymous wrote: [...] > In my opinion tutorials should never > use predefined constants or predefined > macros in the first couple of tutorials > and then if they wish to use them, the > tutorial should describe and explain > them, so the reader is included in the > making of these predefined things. How > would a beginner ever understand some > thing predefined, when "pre" is "pre" > as in before the first tutorial/lesson? I agree. Don't use unexplained things in a beginners tutorial. |