Significant Pure Assembler Application In MASM ?
in [ASM]
|
Prev: aeBIOS Test Request
Next: CMOVcc vs. Jcc
From: Betov on 6 Oct 2007 14:08 //\\\\o//\\\\annabee <w(a)w.w.w> �crivait news:op.tzsdt1mtin6out(a)darth-fpsr: > So, Basically, i think that RosAsm has a valid a real future with > windows, and that you should start porting it to 64bit Maybe, but it is sure that i never wrote one single line *for* Windows, and never will. For 64-bit, i do not understand the reason why people may get interested with this. I was really very surprised when seeing all of the actual Assemblers on a hurry at enabling this, as if there was any advantage at this extension. Maybe they all believe that "64 is more than 32"... Don't know. As strange to me as the ones still programming in DOS nowadays. It seems that "what for?" is a wrong question... Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: santosh on 6 Oct 2007 14:19 Betov wrote: > //\\\\o//\\\\annabee <w(a)w.w.w> �crivait > news:op.tzsdt1mtin6out(a)darth-fpsr: > >> So, Basically, i think that RosAsm has a valid a real future with >> windows, and that you should start porting it to 64bit > > Maybe, but it is sure that i never wrote one single line *for* > Windows, and never will. But RosAsm, as it stands, is used almost exclusively under MS Windows. I doubt whether ReactOS will _ever_ become usable for the average user. It's leagues behind even Linux. > For 64-bit, i do not understand the reason why people may get > interested with this. Because all the desktop processors manufactured since a year are 64-bit and will stay so. > I was really very surprised when seeing > all of the actual Assemblers on a hurry at enabling this, as > if there was any advantage at this extension. For numerical and multimedia work there is a real advantage. Also it's good for an assembler to keep up with it's target architecture and non fall behind like Windela, A86 and others. <snip>
From: //o//annabee on 6 Oct 2007 14:24 On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:08:35 +0200, Betov <betov(a)free.fr> wrote: > //\\\\o//\\\\annabee <w(a)w.w.w> �crivait > news:op.tzsdt1mtin6out(a)darth-fpsr: > >> So, Basically, i think that RosAsm has a valid a real future with >> windows, and that you should start porting it to 64bit > > Maybe, but it is sure that i never wrote one single line *for* > Windows, and never will. > > For 64-bit, i do not understand the reason why people may get > interested with this. I was really very surprised when seeing > all of the actual Assemblers on a hurry at enabling this, as > if there was any advantage at this extension. Maybe they all > believe that "64 is more than 32"... Don't know. As strange > to me as the ones still programming in DOS nowadays. It seems > that "what for?" is a wrong question... It doesnt mean a thing what is logical if you cannot penetrate the clouds first. What do you tell a "neworn", Ren�? That he allways was an idiot? > Betov. > > < http://rosasm.org > >
From: Betov on 6 Oct 2007 14:50 santosh <santosh.k83(a)gmail.com> �crivait news:fe8jka$bj8$1(a)aioe.org: > For numerical and multimedia work there is a real advantage. Also it's > good for an assembler to keep up with it's target architecture and non > fall behind like Windela, A86 and others Oh, i have no doubt that 64-bit will become main stream, with times going. What i fail to understand is the reason why the actual Assemblers were so fast at upgrading, whereas, twenty years after the death of DOS, there still exist a significative number of guys programming for DOS, nowadays. Of course, it is quite easy to implement, but... what for? You say "Multimedia"? Well, as if XMMX did not exist under Win32. If you compare the huge, and self-evident, progresses which were done with the switch from DOS to flat mem PE-32, to the one of 32 to 64, whereas no user no earth would ever notice any difference... this is rather surprising. Personaly, as long as there did not even exist any plan for a ReactOS 64-bit, i had absolutely no valid reason for implementing this stuff. And now that there is no more any hope on ReactOS at all... Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: //o//annabee on 6 Oct 2007 15:12
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 19:56:37 +0200, santosh <santosh.k83(a)gmail.com> wrote: > //\\\\o//\\\\annabee wrote: >> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 18:38:53 +0200, Betov <betov(a)free.fr> wrote: >> >>> As you know, i am inside an "expectation loop", actually. Now that >>> ReactOS is dead, RosAsm has no more any reason for existing, other >>> than for assuming its users, but for sure, i will no more implement >>> anything important new, without any PE alternative to Windows. >>> >>> Also, Linux is another world, where so much work should be done that >>> it frightens me, whereas i am still unsure if Ubuntu will ever win a >>> significative market range, or not. >>> >>> So, wasting time at COM thingies or at painting giraffes in purple... >> >> :)) >> >> Yes. But I dont see this exactly the same way. I see another 10-20 >> years of windows. >> Eventually I belive it will "die". (Become just a choise). > > It _is_ a choice, even now. > >> But in the meantime, "all" of the users will be doing windows. > > You are wrong here. Maybe. > > <snip something about "purple giraffes"> :) it just mean a fancy interface. However it could mean a useful one. Depends. Anyway, I think what is just "fancy" in one app, may be extremly useful in another >> Another thing is that to teach users what GPL means, this imply to be >> present in an OS where users are. Soforth this is windows. > > No, not so forth. Linux definitely has hundreds of thousands of users, > if not millions. Also don't forget other OSS OSen like FreeBSD, NetBSD, > OpenBSD etc. Ok. The more the better. But _I_ do not know more than _one_ non-windows user, and he is a genious, and unfortunatly they generalize poorly. > <snip> > >> I think that GPL is much more important then any OS. > > ITYM Free Software, not GPL. > >> I am not the first to see this. > > Obviously. :) Sorry for mixing the word IDE with GUI below. >> There are several very good GPL projects running on >> windows. We have for instance : The VLC mediaplayer, that is an >> _AWSOME_ mediaplayer that even without an IDE > > IDE for a media player? I am heavily augmented at the moment. Sorry for this. I ment GUI, not IDE. :D >> completly mocks the >> Windows M$ Mediaplayer. However. The mediaplayer of windows, is still >> gaining users. Despite this!! Why??? > > Because Windows Media Player used to be bundled along with Windows and > because Microsoft does a huge amount of "marketing." > > Keep in mind though that the dominance of Media Player is not as great, > or as important, as the more fundamental dominance of Windows itself. Ok. But this doesnt make the GPL (free software) views less important to present thoose views where the users are. > <snip> > >> Its is an indisputable fact that most people, even smart people, react >> positivly to what they think looks nice. > > It's not an indisputable fact, particularly not in programming. Well. Maybe. My experiene says it is. >> This is evidently the major >> reason why Windows is successful. Looking good is extremly important. > > My KDE desktop is much prettier looking than any Windows desktop I've > ever used or seen. Yes. But this is because _you_ made it like that. I was not even considering people as smart as you here. >> It works directly at the subconscience. > > Only for shallow folks. Unfortunatly not. It works for all of us. And even more so for users, who are the very reason for programmers to exist. >> Few are those that avoid this lure, cause it is _wired_ into us. A few >> years ago I heard that scientist have actually proven that the >> relation between good looks, and good personality is factual. > > Disputable. I know of many many counter examples. I know too, Me! There are allways counter examples. :D However, what I am saying here is really obvious to an extent that any counter argument, this argument has to address itself, first. >> evidently something to consider when releasing software, which only >> purpose is to have users. What other purpose is there? To not have >> users????? > > There is not direct correlation between software use and it's "beauty." No. But this _is_ what users see. This is a trivial and sad thing (maybe). But users like hot looking apps, just the way you like a red haired hottie babe, or a blondie in a red dress. I dont think there anything new in what I say. Just an empasis of facts, known since decades. >> So, Basically, i think that RosAsm has a valid a real future with >> windows, and that you should start porting it to 64bit. > > You do realise that RosAsm is _not_ a visually pleasing piece of work, > don't you? Well. As you, I do not need this. I think you just misunderstand where I am "comming" from. This was just my way of "seeing" things. On behalf (maybe dead wrong) of potential users. Espially very young an inexperienced users. How else would _you_ explain the incredible success of windows? > I believe that Betov should do more work on the RosAsm _language_ rather > than it's current implementation. If the language becomes attractive > enough someone will implement it into the current implementation or > produce a new one. I think the RosAsm lanuage is the best there is. I did it for close to 4 years now. This wasnt the topic of debate. I spent several years looking at Spasm. I which I would have switched to it earlier. I which I could have been "lured" to see it earlier. > The RosAsm assembly language should be given primary importance if Betov > and the RosAsm community want the language to go anywhere other than > the graveyard. |