RosAsm is a loser
in [ASM]
|
Prev: Another bad link?
Next: Apple II Debugger
From: Dunny on 21 Jul 2006 14:21 In news:XnF9807CCE5E4FC6betovfreefr(a)212.27.42.134, Betov <betov(a)free.fr> typed: > You can twist your swindling the way you like, your HLL > Pre-Parser, does nothing else, here, but translating: > > mov( 0, eax ); > > into the standard: > > mov eax, 0 > > and passing it down to an obfuscated Assembler, that you > never wrote. I think you've grasped the wrong end of the stick again, betov. What randy is asking, is: What is the difference between an instruction created using HLA1.x (which uses a backend assembler) and HLA2.0 (which *is* the assembler, and doesn't rely on a backend)? This was prompted by your assertion that "many members are able to make the difference between an Assembler and an HLL Pre-Parser written in Flex, Bison and C". Given that the instructions that HLA1.x "pre-parses" are identical to the instructions that HLA 2.0 *assembles*, how will you know the difference? You're just so jealous of HLA that it shows. You'll even go to extremes, making claims and statements that aren't even true, if it will give you an opportunity to damage HLA. You're really a very sad individual. I look forward to one of the following: 1. An insult from you, without actually addressing any points 2. You misunderstanding, and insulting everyone else 3. You misunderstanding, and making up another lie 4. All of the above. D.
From: William J. Leary Jr. on 22 Jul 2006 07:55 "Betov" <betov(a)free.fr> wrote in message news:XnF9808731717198betovfreefr(a)212.27.42.201... > TASM: mov eax, 0 > A386: mov eax, 0 > Pass33: mov eax, 0 > MASM: mov eax, 0 > NASM: mov eax, 0 > FASM: mov eax, 0 > RosAsm: mov eax, 0 > GoAsm: mov eax, 0 > ... > Your absurd Text Converter: mov( 0, eax ); So, your argument is that it's wrong because it's different. I assume you get equally fragged about: GAS: movl $0, %eax Moving the dimmer switch from the floor to the steering column must have sent you absolutely apoplectic. - Bill
From: Betov on 22 Jul 2006 09:31 "William J. Leary Jr." <Bill_Leary(a)msn.com> crivait news:SMidnePmMeVrjF_ZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d(a)comcast.com: > "Betov" <betov(a)free.fr> wrote in message > news:XnF9808731717198betovfreefr(a)212.27.42.201... >> TASM: mov eax, 0 >> A386: mov eax, 0 >> Pass33: mov eax, 0 >> MASM: mov eax, 0 >> NASM: mov eax, 0 >> FASM: mov eax, 0 >> RosAsm: mov eax, 0 >> GoAsm: mov eax, 0 >> ... >> Your absurd Text Converter: mov( 0, eax ); > > So, your argument is that it's wrong because it's different. Read before commenting. My argument is that there is _nothing wrong_ with whatever formal syntax. You could, as well, have: Move 0 into eax or: eax = 0 or whatever, it would still be Assembly if it was written for an Assembler... which is indirectly true, here, as long as HLA does nothing but translating into Assembly, and passing it all down to an obfuscated Assembler. The only question, here, is about the real reasons why this insane swindler choosed to also obfuscate the usual way, after having obfuscated the Assembler itself. What is really all of this about? Well, you write: mov( 0, eax ); .... and the Text Converter translates it into: mov eax, 0 Now, let us reverse the situation, and let us say that the swindler would have choosen the usual way. You would then write: mov eax, 0 .... and the text converter would "translate" it into: mov eax, 0 So, why would a FASM user use a Text converter doing... nothing (???!!!...). Maybe a beginner could fall into the trap for a day or two, missleaded by the heavy propaganda, but, it is much evident that, one day or another, he would directly use... FASM alone, would it only be because the FASM Macros System is way more powerful than this absurd Pre-Parser. Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Dunny on 22 Jul 2006 09:50 In news:XnF98089E117401Dbetovfreefr(a)212.27.42.195, Betov <betov(a)free.fr> typed: >> So, your argument is that [HLA is] wrong because it's different. > My argument is that there is _nothing wrong_ with whatever > formal syntax. A Invalid argument, 0:1 D.
From: rhyde on 22 Jul 2006 09:56
Betov wrote: > > or whatever, it would still be Assembly if it was written > for an Assembler... which is indirectly true, here, as > long as HLA does nothing but translating into Assembly, > and passing it all down to an obfuscated Assembler. Such a tired old argument. HLA must really be an incredible product as the only complaint you keep dredging up is a manufactured one that absolutely no one (other than yourself) seems to care about. I consider it a compliment to the highest degree that you can't find anything wrong with HLA other than how I chose to implement it. > > The only question, here, is about the real reasons why > this insane swindler choosed to also obfuscate the usual > way, after having obfuscated the Assembler itself. That has been well-discussed in this newsgroup in the past. But as your long-term memory doesn't seem to work very well, you might try reading this to refresh yourself: http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/AsmTools/HLA/HLADoc/HTMLDoc/teachingASM.html > > What is really all of this about? Well, you write: > > mov( 0, eax ); > > ... and the Text Converter translates it into: > > mov eax, 0 > > Now, let us reverse the situation, and let us say that > the swindler would have choosen the usual way. You would > then write: > > mov eax, 0 > > ... and the text converter would "translate" it into: > > mov eax, 0 > > So, why would a FASM user use a Text converter doing... > nothing (???!!!...). Well, for one thing, what does HLA's macro processor translate stdout.put( "Hello world, i=", i, " s=", s, " f=", f:10:2, nl ); into? And would FASM be able to do that? (That's a colloquial question, btw, the answer is "no, FASM's macro facilities can't do that"). The bottom line is that HLA is semantically richer than assemblers like MASM, FASM, Gas, and TASM, which is why people like it. > Maybe a beginner could fall into the > trap for a day or two, missleaded by the heavy propaganda, > but, it is much evident that, one day or another, he would > directly use... FASM alone, would it only be because the > FASM Macros System is way more powerful than this absurd > Pre-Parser. Spoken by the guy who finally figured out that FASM has a more powerful macro system than his assembler. Sorry, Rene, but if you're just figuring out how much more powerful FASM's macro subsystem is than RosAsm's, you've got a lot to learn before you'll be ready to tackle the HLA compile-time language. Cheers, Randy Hyde |