From: on

Betov wrote:
> "randyhyde(a)" <randyhyde(a)> écrivait
> news:1161533852.284391.112080(a)
> > Exactly what can the FASM Macro System do that HLA can't compete with?
> Clown, the day you will do one tenth of the things that
> have effectively outputted with FASM, with your absurd
> HLL Pre-Parser, you will begin to look like "something".
> Instead of duping yourself with illusions, you should
> take a look on the ongoing threads, sometimes.

So why don't you point out at least 10 things that FASM's macro system
can do that HLA's cannot?
We're waiting...
Randy Hyde

From: on

Herbert Kleebauer wrote:
> Evenbit wrote:
> > FWIW, here is a program that demonstrates the difference between a
> > binary file and a character file -- when run, it creates two files and
> > you will know which one is binary and which one is character by their
> > respective file names:
> Maybe you can enlighten a non HLA user how this program
> demonstrates the difference between a binary file and a
> character file.

I do believe that's the point. There is no difference other than the
file name.
Randy Hyde

From: on

Betov wrote:
> "sevag.krikorian(a)" <sevag.krikorian(a)> écrivait
> news:1161539234.293727.85390(a)
> >>He was the perfect example of the failure case of HLA. Period.
> >> You also are a good candidate, by the way.
> >
> > A failure case involves someone who stops using the product and
> > switches to another. Rosasm has its share of failure cases. Rosasm
> > itself is a failure case.
> Yes? How is it that there are, actually several volunteers
> developing it actively, then?

The developers are the only ones actually using the product! You chase
all your potential users away, either through your attitude or lack of
features in your assembler. Failure case.

> >> This still does not make any HLL Pre-Parser any "Macros
> >> Symbolic Assembler".
> >
> > It doesn't matter what you want to call it. This is no discussion of
> > implementation. It's a discussion of how the tools are used. HLA is a
> > high level assembler,
> No. It is not any Assembler.
> > it does not pretend to be anything else.
> Yes. It pretends to be an Assembler, whereas it is not.
> > Naturally, you will see HLA programmers taking advantage of the high
> > level features.
> I have never seen this.

*You never see anything you don't want to see. People like you are
called ignorant.

> > Add yourself to the list of people who will never program in assembly.
> > Rosasm sources are not written in assembly. Anyone how looks will see
> > that it is a form of high-level assembly.
> Yes, it is, minion: Macro Assembly. And the Macros System
> is so powerfull for HLL Constructs that there is little
> difference with somer HLL Statements. And then?

And then they are no longer programming in assembly. Just like you.

Like I said, this discussion is not about the implementation of the
tool, but how you use it. You have a macro assembler but you use it
like an HLA to the full extent that is allowed by it's macro
implementation. That is no longer assembly. The day you realize this
fact is the day you will stop attacking HLA... but then again, see *

> > The fact you fail to understand is that people will take the path of
> > least resistance when they program. This means using features provided
> > by their chosen assembler. It it has symbolic support, they will use
> > symbols rather than relying on constant offsets. If it has macros,
> > those will be used. If it has structure support, structures will be
> > used. Etc.
> Nothing new, minion: ... and when they will have a real HLL
> they will, as herbert says, use the HLL. Really nothing new.
> Betov.
> < >

They will use an HLL if it's more convenient to do so, remember the
path of least resistance. It's a law of nature.


From: Evenbit on

Frank Kotler wrote:
> Evenbit wrote:
> ...
> > HIDE - {for Frank} stoneded
> That would be "HIGHED", Nathan. You've heard of the famous "high word"?
> (but close enough!)

Would "high {dis}order byte" be a hip geek confectionary? :)


From: Evenbit on

Frank Kotler wrote:
> (FWIW, Herbert's "binary in a batch file" isn't working well in dosemu...)

That's a bummer. Hopefully the die-hard DOS fans will keep that OS
breathing on future machines so the kiddies will have access to his
collection of brilliant art.

> P.S. Re: character file. What's the newline doing in your "binary" file???

Good catch! Nice example of implementation issues. 0A0D for one
endian and 0D0A for the other. Just 0A for some OSen.

To find some non-binary files we have to recall the days of the analog
internet. Boy, those were golden years. The fun we had dodging the
NSA's oscilloscope when a.l.a was hosted on vacuum tubes and relay
switches... ah, the memories! Today's kiddies have the luxury of '0'
and '1' being mapped to meanings like 'on' and 'off', 'high-' and
'low-' voltage levels, 'true' and 'false' logical identities, etc.
But, before numbers were invented, we had to make do with just a '.'
{dot} and a '-' {dash} and the passage of time. It didn't matter what
your words-per-minute rate was... you could still establish an
aproximate unit of measurement for the carrier wave:

1 unit - dot length
3 units - dash length
1 unit - pause between elements (that make up the char)
3 units - pause between characters
7 units - pause between words

Wow! I guess we really were 1337 hackers back then, huh? :)