Multiple Statements per Line
in [ASM]
|
From: Dragontamer on 10 Apr 2006 10:02 o///annnabee wrote: > På Mon, 10 Apr 2006 04:11:36 +0200, skrev Dragontamer <prtiglao(a)gmail.com>: > > > If it is usable to you, but useless to the 99 other members on your > > team, then > > it is a bad style. > > No. Assuming two pair of eyes and a working brain, and roughly same > perception, what will work for me will work for them. Just like we are all > able to read the same book. Or understand the same movie, or the same > music. Then if its a good style for me, it will be good enough for them as > well. With a good style I mean a style that your are able to bring into > some decent sized project, and are able to read and recap code in a few > minutes, several month after you wrote it. 1. Not true with books. People accustomed to Sans Serif fonts read sans serif font books faster than those who are accustomed to serif fonts. And vice versa. Not to mention, if you are reading a series of books, I dunno, like Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings, those who read all the previous books will understand the book much better. Those accustomed to Shakespeare also read and comprehend Shakespeare much better than those who never seen his style before. 2. Neither with a movies. Take for example, Star Wars. Star Wars 1 is much more enjoyable if you've seen 4 5 and 6. 3. Ditto with games. Someone who has mastered "Doom" will be much better at Halo than someone who just started playing FPS with Halo. > >> > Nonetheless, Wannabie's logic holds for programs written by one > >> > developer. > >> > >> No. then it would not be logic. Logic is universal. > > > > "Logic" is a system of arguments, and all arguments are based on > > assumptions. > > Well, those assumtions arent really assumptions, but, in norwegian we call > it an AXIOM. Given the same axiom, (referanse system), the logic yields > the same answer each time. This is the basic of matematics. It is why we > can launch sondes with information about humans, able to be comprehended > by some beeing with a totally diffrent referanse system, some place far > away in time and space. As long as they are able to logic reason, they > will be able to decode the message. Yup yup. Yeah, it is Axiom here in English as well. > > Your logic holds, but not for these different assumptions :-) > > Yes, my logic here is very clear. Now, you may say that some guy could > claim he ate cheese, and never eat it. But then he is illogical. Invalid or unsound argument are the terms I'd use. But if you are talking about this kind of logic, you haven't done any "logic" yet outside of stating assumptions :) > Assuming > he needs food, he will eat, when the need to do it is present. The logic > is clear. He has a need for food, and cheese will nurish him, and it > follows that when he have nothing else to choose from he will eat the > cheese. So, when he says he never eats it, he is basically creating an > illusion for himself. A lie, simply. And so it is for this matter. You can > understand and read something if I can understand and read something. And > if I can do so efficiently, you can do so efficiently. What is illogical > is that you would need to create yourself the illusion that you cannot. It isn't that it cannot be done, it is that one person is more efficient at one thing than another person is. Anyway, mentally retarded people do exist in the world. You cannot assume everyone's mental capacities are equal. > >> I dont care what you argue or not. When it comes to you and me, I am > >> allways right and you are allways wrong. Unless I say you are right. > > > > Wannabie, you got this all backwards. > > Its Wannabee. :-) > > I was the one who is always correct. > > > > Although... There was this one time I thought I was wrong... > > but I was mistaken. > > Yes. roughly so. > :)) :-p --Dragontamer
From: ?a/b on 10 Apr 2006 13:01 On 10 Apr 2006 07:02:26 -0700, "Dragontamer" wrote: >o///annnabee wrote: >> P? Mon, 10 Apr 2006 04:11:36 +0200, skrev Dragontamer <prtiglao(a)gmail.com>: >> >> > If it is usable to you, but useless to the 99 other members on your >> > team, then >> > it is a bad style. >> >> No. Assuming two pair of eyes and a working brain, and roughly same >> perception, what will work for me will work for them. Just like we are all >> able to read the same book. Or understand the same movie, or the same >> music. Then if its a good style for me, it will be good enough for them as >> well. With a good style I mean a style that your are able to bring into >> some decent sized project, and are able to read and recap code in a few >> minutes, several month after you wrote it. > >1. Not true with books. People accustomed to Sans Serif fonts read >sans serif font books faster than those who are accustomed to serif >fonts. >And vice versa. > >Not to mention, if you are reading a series of books, I dunno, like >Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings, those who read all the previous >books will understand the book much better. > >Those accustomed to Shakespeare also read and comprehend Shakespeare >much better than those who never seen his style before. > >2. Neither with a movies. Take for example, Star Wars. Star Wars 1 is >much more enjoyable if you've seen 4 5 and 6. > >3. Ditto with games. Someone who has mastered "Doom" will be >much better at Halo than someone who just started playing FPS >with Halo. > >> >> > Nonetheless, Wannabie's logic holds for programs written by one >> >> > developer. >> >> >> >> No. then it would not be logic. Logic is universal. >> > >> > "Logic" is a system of arguments, and all arguments are based on >> > assumptions. >> >> Well, those assumtions arent really assumptions, but, in norwegian we call >> it an AXIOM. Given the same axiom, (referanse system), the logic yields >> the same answer each time. This is the basic of matematics. It is why we >> can launch sondes with information about humans, able to be comprehended >> by some beeing with a totally diffrent referanse system, some place far >> away in time and space. As long as they are able to logic reason, they >> will be able to decode the message. > >Yup yup. Yeah, it is Axiom here in English as well. > >> > Your logic holds, but not for these different assumptions :-) >> >> Yes, my logic here is very clear. Now, you may say that some guy could >> claim he ate cheese, and never eat it. But then he is illogical. > >Invalid or unsound argument are the terms I'd use. But if you are >talking about >this kind of logic, you haven't done any "logic" yet outside of stating >assumptions :) > >> Assuming >> he needs food, he will eat, when the need to do it is present. The logic >> is clear. He has a need for food, and cheese will nurish him, and it >> follows that when he have nothing else to choose from he will eat the >> cheese. So, when he says he never eats it, he is basically creating an >> illusion for himself. A lie, simply. And so it is for this matter. You can >> understand and read something if I can understand and read something. And >> if I can do so efficiently, you can do so efficiently. What is illogical >> is that you would need to create yourself the illusion that you cannot. > >It isn't that it cannot be done, it is that one person is more >efficient at >one thing than another person is. > >Anyway, mentally retarded people do exist in the world. You cannot >assume everyone's mental capacities are equal. > >> >> I dont care what you argue or not. When it comes to you and me, I am >> >> allways right and you are allways wrong. Unless I say you are right. >> > >> > Wannabie, you got this all backwards. >> >> Its Wannabee. > >:-) > >> > I was the one who is always correct. >> > >> > Although... There was this one time I thought I was wrong... >> > but I was mistaken. >> >> Yes. roughly so. >> :)) > >:-p > >--Dragontamer balle or it is only question for exercise
From: Evenbit on 10 Apr 2006 16:55 James Daughtry wrote: > randyhyde(a)earthlink.net wrote: > > That box was thought outside of a long time ago. Keep in mind, people > > actually *used* to do what you're proposing. It didn't work out. > > Perhaps you are so arrogant as to think you can convince the world to > > adopt your "out of the box" style when it's been rejected before? You > > never can tell, extreme programming has convinced a lot of people that > > they don't need to comment their code. :-) > > No, though I'm certainly arrogant enough to think that I can convince > the world that the accepted "best practices" aren't concrete rules, but > general guidelines. If you apply a general guideline globally then it's > just as bad as not following it at all. > > > > I'm going to write a long article explaining exactly why I'm > > > right and everyone else is wrong by quoting from a book and making > > > comments on it. The book is well respected, so in turn, my approving > > > comments of the book should also be respected. > > > > Versus you writing a long article claiming that I'm wrong because I > > quoted from a well-respected and highly-popular book on the subject? > > The difference here is that you started it. ;-) Perhaps you just see the individual battles but don't see the overall war? It may look as though a "Randall Hyde, Inc." exists which gets promoted, defended, attacked, demonized, preached, etc. But is it real (and to what degree) and is it important (and how does that relate to ASM practitioners)? It may look as though a "RosAsm Cult" [with an agenda] exists which gets promoted, defended, attacked, demonized, preached, etc. But is it real (and to what degree) and is it important (and how does that relate to ASM practitioners)? When you cut-to-the-bone you see that Rene brings an unconventional tool to the table. Good for him! He deserves his "15 minutes of fame" for rocking the boat with a few clever ideas (perhaps badly implemented). He planted a root or two and a bunch of rose gardens sprung up around him. Too bad it tends to come with an undesirable amount of thorns (the idealogy). A typical Google search of "assembly language" reveals that Randall brings many resources (an almost unconventional assembler {it has preceedents}, books galore, interviews, a standard library, reams of documentation, lines and lines and lines of example code demonstrating a wide area of typical CompSci topics, etc.) to the asmer's table. Well, perhaps he has earned himself more than the standard 15... certainly a resident 'celeb' here in a.l.a... and although ASM is just a small, neglected segment of CompSci, Randall's contribution looms large within that realm. But all of this means very little in terms of the standard debate around here. The underlying theme that I see is that Randy is defending/promoting "quality workmanship"/"coding skill"/"best practices" within the trade whereas others tend to exhibit maybe a "Joe Six-pack" attitude that smells of "fix-a-flat in a can"/"just slap a piece of duct-tape on it" and such. If you've ever had a wide variety of plumbers, electricians, carpenters, tree-trimmers, etc come to your home, you'd soon discover which ones really know their trade and which ones are just total idiots. It makes you wonder why those idiots were allowed to get their license/certification when it is clear that you could have done a much better job yourself. But when someone does an exceptional job, your nieghbors/friends/family will often want to know the name of the person you got so they can hire them too. I'm sure I am just touching the tip of the iceburg here. But I don't feel like doing a Bethonian-length post, so I will stop. I'm sure you'll get the gist of it... Nathan.
From: JGCASEY on 10 Apr 2006 17:42 Evenbit wrote: [ ... ] > A typical Google search of "assembly language" reveals that Randall > brings many resources (an almost unconventional assembler {it has > preceedents}, books galore, interviews, a standard library, reams of > documentation, lines and lines and lines of example code demonstrating > a wide area of typical CompSci topics, etc.) to the asmer's table. > Well, perhaps he has earned himself more than the standard 15... > certainly a resident 'celeb' here in a.l.a... and although ASM is just > a small, neglected segment of CompSci, Randall's contribution looms > large within that realm. But all of this means very little in terms of > the standard debate around here. > > The underlying theme that I see is that Randy is defending/promoting > "quality workmanship"/"coding skill"/"best practices" within the trade > whereas others tend to exhibit maybe a "Joe Six-pack" attitude that > smells of "fix-a-flat in a can"/"just slap a piece of duct-tape on it" > and such. If you've ever had a wide variety of plumbers, electricians, > carpenters, tree-trimmers, etc come to your home, you'd soon discover > which ones really know their trade and which ones are just total > idiots. It makes you wonder why those idiots were allowed to get their > license/certification when it is clear that you could have done a much > better job yourself. But when someone does an exceptional job, your > nieghbors/friends/family will often want to know the name of the person > you got so they can hire them too. > > I'm sure I am just touching the tip of the iceburg here. But I don't > feel like doing a Bethonian-length post, so I will stop. I'm sure > you'll get the gist of it... I think programming also has a creative element. It requires an architect. Of course the creative person doesn't have to be the tradesman, but if the tradesman is too expensive, he might just be a hobby builder, then the architect has to do it himself. -- JC
From: Evenbit on 10 Apr 2006 18:50
JGCASEY wrote: > Evenbit wrote: > [ ... ] > I think programming also has a creative element. It requires an > architect. > Of course the creative person doesn't have to be the tradesman, but if > the tradesman is too expensive, he might just be a hobby builder, then > the architect has to do it himself. I agree. Viewing programming as just a trade is too simplistic and too simple-minded and leaves out a great deal of the overall picture. Reading comments at Digg, Slashdot, here, and elsewhere, I see that a lot of people don't quite "get it" and seem to ignore the creative, marketing, and other aspects involved in the programming arena. For instance, a lot of "typical users" are barely capable of using the mouse -- let alone would they know enough about computers to care whether the programmer has read a certain book or not. What are the chances that a client/customer is going to make a purchasing decision based on the readability of your code, whether you extensively used black boxes or not, did you use an unconventional syntax?, did you use a "text convertor" or a "PE editor toy"?, is your code the most efficient?, how much education/experience do you have?, etc.... All the client/customer cares about is that the product works -- performs as advertised! The debates between Rene and Randy present perspectives from extremely opposing poles of an extremely wide spectrum on many topics. Most of these present many questions that don't have easy answers. Nathan. |