URGENT
in [ASM]
|
Prev: RIP relative adresses
Next: ANSWERS
From: wolfgang kern on 14 May 2007 06:56 Betov wrote: >>> Herbert Kleebauer <klee(a)unibwm.de> �crivait [see there] >>> Well... no comment. > > Now, what does this mean? Do you think it's correct what I wrote > > or do you think it's so wrong so it doesn't even deserve a comment? > I think that you are seriously disordered, and that I have no > particuliar competency in the psycho-medical activities. So, if > it is not possible, for you, to put aside your usual delirium, > for a couple of hours, forget it: I do not have the medication > and I am sorry of it. !? I agree with Herbert on what a beginner should have before even touch or decide for any ASM-tool around. I'd recommend: 1. complete copy of the CPU manual (just in case to review details) 2. a set of fast viewable shortcut lists: registers and flags (one page with terse comments) all available instructions (one page for each of CPU/FPU/SSE) addressing modes (one page: 16/32/64 modes and override opportunities) conditions (one page incl. all synonyms) the flags affected list (two pages) much later in the game: 3. the syntax differences in the tools around 4. a few links to asm-source examples finally (may be part of the tool already): 5. The target OS specifics [API-help] (here I'd see HTML-conversion as Jim suggested as a good solution, but where are the volunteers ...?) and after all this: 6. code opimisation 7. Developers pages (RBIL plus a long list of HW-related links) __ wolfgang I have everthing to support all of point 2) above, but it's just unformatted plain text. Perhaps someone got these already in html format.
From: Betov on 14 May 2007 09:22 "wolfgang kern" <nowhere(a)nevernet.at> �crivait news:f29f9s$kp9$1 @newsreader2.utanet.at: > > Betov wrote: >>>> Herbert Kleebauer <klee(a)unibwm.de> �crivait > > [see there] >>>> Well... no comment. > >> > Now, what does this mean? Do you think it's correct what I wrote >> > or do you think it's so wrong so it doesn't even deserve a comment? > >> I think that you are seriously disordered, and that I have no >> particuliar competency in the psycho-medical activities. So, if >> it is not possible, for you, to put aside your usual delirium, >> for a couple of hours, forget it: I do not have the medication >> and I am sorry of it. > > !? > I agree with Herbert on what a beginner should have before even > touch or decide for any ASM-tool around. And in what terms should the Twelve Assembly Lessons concerned with what "a beginner should have before... "? > I'd recommend: > 1. complete copy of the CPU manual (just in case to review details) Same answer. CPU manuals are the jobs, and belong of/to, Intel, AMD, and whatever, and are evidently not the purpose of the Twelve Assembly Lessons, in any manner. > 2. a set of fast viewable shortcut lists: > registers and flags > all available instructions > addressing modes > conditions > the flags affected list ??? Like if all of this would not be covered by B_U_Asm... > much later in the game: > > 3. the syntax differences in the tools around > 4. a few links to asm-source examples I am more interrested with what i could _remove_ or make _simpler_, than with adding this and that. > finally (may be part of the tool already): > 5. The target OS specifics [API-help] This is not the purpose of the Twelve Assembly Lessons. > and after all this: > 6. code opimisation > 7. Developers pages (RBIL plus a long list of HW-related links) This is not the purpose of the Twelve Assembly Lessons. > I have everthing to support all of point 2) above, > but it's just unformatted plain text. > Perhaps someone got these already in html format. The more the merrier, Wolfgang, but it seems that you also, did not took a look at these new Tutorials, which i am talking about, here, for the only reason that they have not been proof-readed, and _need_ to be proof-readed, at several points of views. The reason why i get furious when is i get answers as aburd as "sorry, i don't do Windows" or, "sorry, i cannot open a program under the RosAsm Public License": If these guys do not want to do the job, i can understand it: Such a job is really killing. But instead of answering such stupidities, they could say that they do not have the will for being volunteer for such a boring task. I am particulary upset by Herbert, as the learning methods used by these Tutorials match with several points, that he was discribing in some previous discussions. Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: randyhyde on 14 May 2007 12:33 On May 14, 6:22 am, Betov <b...(a)free.fr> wrote: > > And in what terms should the Twelve Assembly Lessons concerned > with what "a beginner should have before... "? Apparently a complete understanding of machine organization and architecture. They should also already know the x86 instruction set because the tutorials don't explain this. > > > I'd recommend: > > 1. complete copy of the CPU manual (just in case to review details) > > Same answer. CPU manuals are the jobs, and belong of/to, Intel, > AMD, and whatever, and are evidently not the purpose of the Twelve > Assembly Lessons, in any manner. At the very least, you have to tell the reader that they are required to obtain and read these manuals. Of course, they'll immediately throw your tutorial away because in most people's mind, the whole purpose of a beginner's tutorial is to teach this information in a better manner than dumping a reference manual in their laps. I realize that you don't know anything about education, but it's pretty clear to most people that a reference manual is *not* a substitute for a text book or a tutorial on the subject. Furthremore, as you, yourself, admit in B_U_ASM -- programmers rarely use the entire instruction set; indeed, they typically only use a small subset of it. Expecting someone to read the reference manual (especially a beginner) is ludicrous -- they'll drown in the details. Also note that the syntax you employ in your tutorials does *not* match that used by the CPU manufacturers (despite your claims of "generic syntax"). This will cause no end of confusion if you're expecting the beginner to learn the instruction set from the CPU manufacturer's manuals. > > > 2. a set of fast viewable shortcut lists: > > registers and flags > > all available instructions > > addressing modes > > conditions > > the flags affected list > > ??? Like if all of this would not be covered by B_U_Asm... Oh, so now they need to read B_U_ASM first, too? I guess this violates the tutorials' "non-political" statement, eh? > > > much later in the game: > > > 3. the syntax differences in the tools around > > 4. a few links to asm-source examples > > I am more interrested with what i could _remove_ or make _simpler_, > than with adding this and that. No, your tutorials do *not* demonstrate this interest. Otherwise you wouldn't be trying to present several different syntaxes within the tutorial. > > > finally (may be part of the tool already): > > 5. The target OS specifics [API-help] > > This is not the purpose of the Twelve Assembly Lessons. You claimed the tutorials provided everything they need to know to write applications. Surely OS API calls are part of that knowledge. > > > and after all this: > > 6. code opimisation > > 7. Developers pages (RBIL plus a long list of HW-related links) > > This is not the purpose of the Twelve Assembly Lessons. Granted. > The more the merrier, Wolfgang, but it seems that you also, did > not took a look at these new Tutorials, which i am talking about, > here, for the only reason that they have not been proof-readed, > and _need_ to be proof-readed, at several points of views. Actually, you need to throw them all away and start over. As I've pointed out with just your first tutorial, there is no way on Earth beginners are going to make much sense of these tutorials. You require a tremendous amount of background knowledge to follow what's going on in those tutorials. Someone who has such knowledge isn't going to gain much from those tutorials. Quite frankly, it appears like a bunch of RosAsm users sat around patting themselves on the back for the *presentation* and no one thought at all about what a beginner really needs or expects from a tutorial like this. And your claims that the beginner must first read the CPU manufacturer's manuals or B_U_ASM simply confirms this. If a beginner is willing to read (and figure out) the manufacturer's data sheets and other sources of information just to get to the point they can understand what your tutorials are all about, they'll discover they've progressed beyond the point where those tutorials would do them any good. You've really got it backwards. The point of an assembly tutorial is to get the beginner to the point where they can read reference manuals and make sense of what all those instructions are about and how they would use them in an application. > The > reason why i get furious when is i get answers as aburd as "sorry, > i don't do Windows" or, "sorry, i cannot open a program under the > RosAsm Public License": Yes, you throw roadblocks up in the way of people with things like "PE specific" and "RPL". Not to mention your attitude. Why would a beginner give your tutorials any serious attention when you're constantly attacking beginners around here (and elsewhere)? > If these guys do not want to do the job, > i can understand it: Such a job is really killing. But instead > of answering such stupidities, they could say that they do not > have the will for being volunteer for such a boring task. Perhaps they are not up for volunteering for a useless task. It's pretty clear to most people who've spent any amount of time looking at your tutorials that they are completely unsuitable for their intended purpose -- teaching absolute beginners how to program in assembly language. I realize you and your team have put a bit of effort into this project. Now it's time to reflect on what you've done wrong and go back and correct it. That's why projects like AoA are so much better received today -- they've had *years* (indeed, decades) of refinement. You've take the first step, but you've still got many ahead of you. You get annoyed that I produce "megas" of PDF files. Guess what? You're beginning to discover that, unlike your claims, it's actually a lot of work to produce this kind of stuff and do it in a manner that people find useful. Good luck with the task ahead of you (sadly, if your other projects are any indication, I expect you to get bored with this project and move on to something else [more interesting to you at the time] and abandon this project like you have so many others). > I am > particulary upset by Herbert, as the learning methods used by > these Tutorials match with several points, that he was discribing > in some previous discussions. Apparently, you didn't follow what Herbert was talking about. For example, nowhere do I see you telling people to grab the CPU manuals, learn the instruction encoding, and write their own assembler. That's always been Herbert's primary claim for how people should learn assembly language. Also, nowhere (in the first tutorial anyway, which is where the subject belongs) do you cover machine organization. Rene, the problem is that in your arrogance, you've thought you spoke for people like Herbert and Wolfgang when it comes to "assembly language". (Indeed, you are arrogant enough to think that you speak for *all* "asmers" when addressing this newsgroup.) The truth is, you speak for a very tiny number of RosAsm users and even many of those have some severe disagreements with what you have to say. The fact that some people, such as Wolfgang and Herbert, don't like HLA does *not* mean that you have much else in common with them. Indeed, AFAICT, the dislike of HLA is about the *only* thing they share in common with you. If you're upset and frustrated because they're not agreeing with you on the benefits of your tutorials, then this frustration is your own doing. You should pay better attention to what's going on around you. You seem to think that "the enemies (Wolfgang and Herbert) of my enemy (HLA) are my friends." What you've forgotten here is that just because they share a dislike of HLA with you doesn't mean they agree with everything else you have to say. No doubt, the fact that they disagree with you on this point probably means they're "Randall Hyde minions" now. :-) hLater, Randy Hyde
From: Betov on 14 May 2007 12:57 "randyhyde(a)earthlink.net" <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net> �crivait news:1179160408.975429.246860(a)u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com: Did somebody ask you about your opinions, clown? Considering what you have done, the impressive failures of your propaganda production, and the pathetic problems, your victims have to face, you would be the very last individual who should have anything to say about any Assembly Tutorial if the word "decency" had any meaning in your perverted brain. Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Daniel Tucker on 14 May 2007 13:14
Betov wrote: > "randyhyde(a)earthlink.net" <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net> �crivait > news:1179160408.975429.246860(a)u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com: > > > Did somebody ask you about your opinions, clown? > > Considering what you have done, the impressive failures of your > propaganda production, and the pathetic problems, your victims > have to face, you would be the very last individual who should > have anything to say about any Assembly Tutorial if the word > "decency" had any meaning in your perverted brain. > No one asked for my opinion either, but I'm going to give it anyway. Randy is correct, and you, as always, are wrong. Randy has alot of respect in the Assembly Language world. You, on the other hand, have alot of notoriety on account of your foul language, but you have no respect at all. I find it very amusing that you used the word "decency" in the same sentence where you accuse Randy of having a "perverted brain". How contradicting can you be? |