From: Betov on 21 Nov 2005 18:10
"randyhyde(a)earthlink.net" <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net> ?crivait
> written more lines of HLA code than you and all your users (put
Please, make a Pdf of it, just for the fun.
< http://rosasm.org >
From: firstname.lastname@example.org on 21 Nov 2005 18:21
> By the way, all i heard of it, was that it was
> a complete failure case. Well nothing new, even
> with antiquities.
When Sierra On-Line was selling it, I was pulling in $5,000/month in
royalties. Never did *quite* that well selling in myself, but it was
doing a respectable amount of damage at the time. Of course, it had to
compete with an Apple-branded product, so in terms of market
penetration it was a whole lot like HLA vs. MASM today (i.e., MASM is
the 800-lb gorilla of the assembly language market, HLA is more like an
8-pound gorilla [and I guess that means that RosAsm is the 8 gram
Overall, I personally sold about 20,000 copies of the assembler between
Programma International, Sierra On-Line, and Lazer Microsystems (not
bad for the 1979-1985 time frame). I have no idea what HAL Labs did
with the product after I gave it to them.
Again, as usual, you're just making stuff up based on your own
fantasies with no concept of the facts.
From: email@example.com on 21 Nov 2005 18:27
> Others' Products are, mainly: NASM, FASM and GoAsm,
> and i fail to imagine any reason why i would attack
Oh, and let us not forget how many times you've attacked NASM because
it was written in C, because it wasn't (originally) GPL'd, because it
was slow, etc.
And let us not forget how you've attacked GoAsm because external
symbols/static linking were added to it.
The reason you don't attack them is because you need some coat-tails to
ride on. As your own product is a complete failure and so few people
have any respect for it, you need to invoke the names of other
products, like NASM, FASM, and GoAsm when fighting those "dead horses"
MASM and HLA.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org on 21 Nov 2005 18:33
> > In every way but macros, GoAsm is better than RosAsm.
> Thanks for Jeremy.
Jeremy has indeed created a fine product.
But the fact that it is better than RosAsm isn't exactly a feather in
Jeremy's cap. It's pretty hard to write a workable assembler that's not
better than RosAsm :-) Granted, GoAsm has some neat things that make
it *far* better than RosAsm. Indeed, as you admit, GoAsm is *faster*
than RosAsm, so I guess that makes it the "fastest of all actual
assemblers", right? That's certainly an achievement. But again, GoAsm
can be judged on its own merits. Trying to use RosAsm as a measuring
stick for other assemblers serves no purpose as RosAsm just isn't that
From: email@example.com on 22 Nov 2005 12:02
> also works at educating young genious kids in programming,
The funny part, which Wannabee doesn't understand, is that it doesn't
take much talent to teach "genious" [sic] kids programming. Kids that
are that smart can pick things up no matter how *bad* the instructor is
(which in Wolfgang's case...). A better measure of one's teaching
abilities is how well the average and sub-average students do. Wolfgang
has made it pretty clear that he wants nothing to do with such
individuals -- they are not "worthy" of him. That pretty much tells you
about his pedagogical successes.
> Go back and read up! Randy was the one starting the redicoulous "speed
You mean, after Rene started claiming that RosAsm was 20x faster than
Go back and check your history, little grasshopper.
> with his patetical posting that made people scream with
Yes, they were screaming with laughter. At Rene's expense.
> If I recall correctly, the original post was to the masm
> forum, and was a truly absurd claim, having absolutly no scientific
Actually, it was here. But you are otherwise corred. The original post
was a truly absurd claim -- that RosAsm was 20x faster than MASM. And
it was based on hearsay, not any actual measurement. Of course, that
claim was made by Rene, not myself. But you didn't mention who made the
claim, so I'll assume you're talking about Rene.
> Much like his demented "Which is the best assembler"? article on
> webster which at the time he first posted it, was an incredible, really
> bordering on insane article, so obviosuly biased againts his
> textconverter, that one just have to give up trying to take him
> seriously at all.
The link, so all who missed it can judge for themselves:
Of course, RosAsm/SpAsm doesn't look so good compared with other
assemblers, so it's understandable that a RosAsm cheerleader would find
this article to be a problem.
> You can be assured that trying to follow in the footsteps of this
> Randall Hyde will gain you absolutly no credibility, because Hyde has
> repeatedly spoken AGAINST gpl software, with MANY posts. And you who
> claim to write GPLed software, supporting an author which repeatedly
> attack the GPL.....
The GPL has nothing to do with assembly language. Whether software is
licenced commercially, BSD, GPL, public domain, or even that RPL
thingie, is irrelevant. Whether an assembler is licenced one of these
ways in no way affects the feature set. A GPL'd toy is still a toy. A
high-quality commerical assembler (e.g., MASM) is still a feature-rich
product. And a fully-featured public domain product, like HLA, still
beats the pants off of a GPL'd toy. The GPL (or RPL) license may be a
"feature" of RosAsm, but it doesn't help an assembly language
programmer *one bit* in writing their own assembly language programs.
> I only hope you are able to see the incoherence in this.
I think that he does. Most people find your posts to be incoherent.