"We Never Use Assembly Language"
in [ASM]
|
From: sevagK on 12 Mar 2006 17:24 o//annabee wrote: > > > See the indicater yourself if you have not yet poked out both your > > eyes. Everytime Randall posts something, even if it has nothing to do > > with Betov or Rosasm, you'll see a nutty Rene post insanities like the > > one above showing everyone the bare fact: Betov has no competence to > > respond to Randall's knowledge level. > > If René has no competanse, then who wrote RosAsm ? An incompetent person wrote it. That's why it has the smallest userbase of all the assemblers. Most people recognize this fact. >:)) If it was not René, > then I would like to know who is responsible for the most efficient > programming tool I ever had the pleasure of working with. To you maybe. I spent 10 minutes on it trying to do a trivial thing and already broke the If-end_if macro. It's the most retarded conditional branch macro I've experienced in any assmebler. Then I tried to undo some texts... 1 character at a time undo. He doesn't even have the competence to implement a decent undo feature. Just about all Rosasm 'features' are a pale shadow of the same features that appear in better assemblers. > If Randall Hyde has any competanse, then who wrote HLA? If it was not > Randall I like to know who is responsible for this catastrophy. > Rosasm can't hold a candle to the power of HLA. But that's not surprising... Rosasm can't hold a candle to the power of MASM, FASM, GOASM, NASM, TASM or AS. It's no surprise that the assembler dragging at the bottom of the heap was written by an incompetent. -sevag.k www.geocities.com/kahlinor
From: Bertrand Augereau on 12 Mar 2006 17:48 First, I think Tim's statement is a bit provocative in the gaming industry where most coders value performance and tight code :) Second, he's probably right we'll need higher level languages than the industry standard (ie C++) to leverage efficiently implicit parrallelism. A more functional way, with less side effects is certainly desirable! Third, please Wannabee, don't make a jerk of yourself, you don't know jack about the game industry and what is involved in the production of a game engine (certainly more than artworks).
From: Betov on 12 Mar 2006 18:17 "nessuno" <fmdf66(a)yahoo.com> ?crivait news:1142193449.687919.318470 @u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com: > Just one more thought. Did I understand well that a RosAsm executable > must be produced from a single file? Did I understand well that you > can't link together different object files to produce a single > executable? You understood perfectly, and it is delibaratly made that way in order to make it impossible for any user, to do what you want to do. RosAsm is not a C-Side Tool. ;) Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: Betov on 12 Mar 2006 18:20 "nessuno" <fmdf66(a)yahoo.com> ?crivait news:1142193421.944800.252890 @i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com: > Some months ago, when I heard about RosAsm in this NG, I really wanted > to give it a try but later I discovered that it can't work on my > operating system and I don't want to purchase a MS-Win licence only to > run Ros Asm. I hope one day to see it running on a free and open source > operating system, no matter which. Good position, but you miss the point that i begun writing RosAsm the first day i heard of ReactOS: < http://www.reactos.org/xhtml/en/index.html > [Don't dream... not yet ready for everydays usage...] Betov. < http://rosasm.org >
From: o//annabee on 12 Mar 2006 19:26
P? Sun, 12 Mar 2006 23:48:09 +0100, skrev Bertrand Augereau <bertrand_myfamilynamegoeshere(a)yahoo.fr>: > First, I think Tim's statement is a bit provocative in the gaming > industry where most coders value performance and tight code :) > > Second, he's probably right we'll need higher level languages than the > industry standard (ie C++) to leverage efficiently implicit parrallelism. > A more functional way, with less side effects is certainly desirable! > > Third, please Wannabee, don't make a jerk of yourself, you don't know > jack about the game industry and what is involved in the production of a > game engine (certainly more than artworks). Sure. I am not claiming I know. But I wrote a 3DEditor once, able to create things like a simple plane, for instance, saved in my own file format. It was in no way even a challange. Yet I still will say that creating artwork is the major part of a 3D game nowadays, which is why I will be more interessted in things like randomly created terrain and such things, to compensate for the need for real art. I have gathered rather many papers on this in the past, and have a rough understanding of the areas which will require most time. And my guess is that theese areas are 1. fast rendering, and good physics, e.g to even make a simple geometry playable is takes some hard work. I will be focusing on dynamic scenery. Where the player is able to change the environment. 2. Creating artwork is a _very_ significant part. To say its not is just plain stupid. 3. Defining a playable game. That is an interssting idea. A good story, and a good balance between the story and the playability. I have seen many awsomely technical games, that are just terrible boring to play. I am not saying I know. I am saying a have a rough picture. And I dont think my picture is horribly unrealistic. But I am very ready to listen to anyone having something to say about it, not that I am thinking its going to be you :)))) One thing that is for sure, is that the hardest part is to come up with a good idea for the game itself. Even a textbased game can be immensly fun, if the playablity is very high. And the lastest in technical graphic will not make much diffrence if the gameplay suck. -- |