Structs in Assembly
in [ASM]
|
From: Betov on 21 Nov 2005 18:10 "randyhyde(a)earthlink.net" <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net> ?crivait news:1132613415.340687.295510(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > *I've* > written more lines of HLA code than you and all your users (put > together :))))) Please, make a Pdf of it, just for the fun. :))))) Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: randyhyde@earthlink.net on 21 Nov 2005 18:21 Betov wrote: > > By the way, all i heard of it, was that it was > a complete failure case. Well nothing new, even > with antiquities. Hmmm... 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 gorilla]). 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. Cheers, Randy Hyde
From: randyhyde@earthlink.net on 21 Nov 2005 18:27 Betov wrote: > > Others' Products are, mainly: NASM, FASM and GoAsm, > and i fail to imagine any reason why i would attack > them. 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. Cheers, Randy Hyde
From: randyhyde@earthlink.net on 21 Nov 2005 18:33 Betov wrote: > > > 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 good. Cheers, Randy Hyde
From: randyhyde@earthlink.net on 22 Nov 2005 12:02
the-o/-/annabee wrote: > He > 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 > contest" You mean, after Rene started claiming that RosAsm was 20x faster than MASM? Go back and check your history, little grasshopper. > with his patetical posting that made people scream with > laughter. 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 > validity. 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: http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/AsmTools/WhichAsm.html 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. Cheers, Randy Hyde |