From: o//annabee on 14 Mar 2006 18:40
P? Tue, 14 Mar 2006 19:28:46 +0100, skrev randyhyde(a)earthlink.net
> as Wannabee might say "the
> machine code doesn't lie."
Yep. Made perfectly clear when we timed the "asm" like HLA code you
posted, some time ago, commpared to the one I posted, using RosAsm while
You wore seriously thinking yours wore faster, and said so, because you
made the mistake of beliving something you picked up somewhere, but the
tests, I did, and posted, using rdtsc show the RosAsm one to be faster.
> Randy Hyde
From: firstname.lastname@example.org on 14 Mar 2006 19:02
Frank Kotler wrote:
> That chick "BAH" from alt.folklore.computers claimed to program "by feel".
Actually, I've seen someone do this. When I was an undergraduate in a
FORTRAN programming class (back in the days when we used punched cards)
there was this blind guy taking the classes. He could read the
Hollerith cards by touching them. I felt kind of sorry for him as the
microcomputer revolution began, because all that time he'd spent
learning to read punch cards turned out to be wasted (and for the first
several years, he was unable to use PCs because they didn't really have
an output device suitable for him to read; though I often wondered if
he ever learned to read punched tape).
From: email@example.com on 14 Mar 2006 19:09
> > It was already done dimwit.
> Feel free to make a clown of yourself publicly, by
> providing the Link, troll. I perfectly recall of
> the complete failure of Randall Hyde, on this case
> (as well as with any other), where he finaly said
> that he did not understood what RosAsm Macros
> were doing.
While you're demanding links from others, why don't *you* provide the
link where I said I couldn't do the PROC/ENDP macros because I didn't
understand what the RosAsm macros were doing?
I do recall asking what *one* thing in the macro was attempting,
because it was very convoluted. Once you answered, I provided the MASM
code to do the same.
> Then, he pathetically said that he had
> not to do this,
Wrong, I provided the macros. And *then* said there was no need for
them because MASM already provided the facility. And a *far* better one
than your macros provided, I might add.
> as long as the HLLisms were already
> _inside_ the MASM C-Side Toy, not even understanding
> that this was showing:
> 1) That MASM is not an Assembler, at all, but a
> "Compiler for Assembly Language".
I was showing that MASM macros are more powerful than RosAsm. You
stated that MASM couldn't do what RosAsm was doing with PROC/ENDP. I
demonstrated that you could. I also provided an essay where I showed
how each and every RosAsm macro feature could be simulated with MASM's
macro facilities. IIRC, I also demonstrated a couple of things that
could not be done with RosAsm, just to provide the final proof that
MASM is more powerful than RosAsm.
And as for a "compiler for an assembly language", well, that's what all
assemblers are. Even RosAsm is one of those. You might look up the
definition of "compiler" some time.
> 2) That MASM Macros System is so weak that writting
> such Macros would be impossible,
Keep saying this over and over again. Despite the fact that it *has*
Talking about trying to "swindle" people!
You should just give up on this nonsense and *improve* RosAsm's macro
facilities so you actually have something to brag about. Simply
repeating the same old falsehood over and over again doesn't change
While you're at it, you need to speed up RosAsm by another factor of
three or four so you can legitimately claim it is the "fastest of all
actual assemblers" as FASM is still about 2.5x faster on the
measurements I've been making.
> and that this
> is the exact reason why they "are given for free"
> by the Compiler.
And MASM *still* generates better code for the IF invocations than
RosAsm does. You've still not proven otherwise.
From: o//annabee on 14 Mar 2006 19:15
P? Tue, 14 Mar 2006 21:40:46 +0100, skrev sevagK <kahlinor(a)yahoo.com>:
> Betov wrote:
>> "sevagK" <kahlinor(a)yahoo.com> ?crivait news:1142301695.148972.226240
>> > Rosasm = IDE for converting written assembly to executable/dll
>> > HIDE = IDE for converting written assembly to executable/dll/library
>> > Rosasm: can call up debugger, resource editor, help file, etc.
>> > HIDE can call up debugger, resource editor, help file, etc.
>> > Both get the same job done.
>> If so, where are the Links to the Applications written
>> by the HLA victims, Pathetic idiot?
> Clown, your reply has nothing to do with the above which compares the
> IDEs and productivity. Mine took less than a year of light dev time,
> but its abilty to truly integrate with software allows it to compare
> nearly feature to feature to your IDE which took a decade of heavy dev
Time to program FASM ?
+ time for Hla 9 years
+ time for HLAParse ?
+ time for the external debugger?
+ your one year
> Not only did it take much less time, but the quality of the
> tools it can integrate with are far superior to anything you've bolted
> onto Rosasm over the years.
:) I am to tired at laughing.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org on 14 Mar 2006 19:15
> I didnt say that this is the limit of the RosAsm macrossystem. I was
> refering to the standard, official RosAsm macroset. This set is assembly.
> But RosAsm has conditional macros and far more advanced macros then I ever
You obviously don't need very much.
Yet you claim that RosAsm is the most productive assembly language
system around without really knowing much about conditional assembly or
needing a powerful macro system. Those who *have* used powerful macro
systems would disagree with you on this.