hla set up for the art of assembly
in [ASM]
|
From: Wolfgang Kern on 15 Jun 2008 07:04 Herbert Kleebauer wrote: >> the answer is ______42_________________________________ > 42 in words: > Don't use HLA, use an assembler. There are plenty assemblers > available so there is really no reason to use HLA. If you > want to use a HL language instead of an assembler, use C > and not HLA. Fully seconded from my view. __ wolfgang
From: Frank Kotler on 15 Jun 2008 09:30 Wolfgang Kern wrote: > Herbert Kleebauer wrote: > >>> the answer is ______42_________________________________ > >> 42 in words: > >> Don't use HLA, use an assembler. There are plenty assemblers >> available so there is really no reason to use HLA. If you >> want to use a HL language instead of an assembler, use C >> and not HLA. > > Fully seconded from my view. Only "semi-seconded" by me. I agree that "the way to learn assembly language" is to start at a very low level - DEBUG or so - and work up to... well, "powerful macros" and "high level constructs", if that's what you want. You could use C, as Herbert suggests, but you can also get some of those features in a "macro assembler", if that's what you want to do. There's a "reason" to use HLA: AoA. It's a "good" book - "extensive" anyway. I'm not aware of anyplace else all that information is available. Dr. Carter's "pcasm", Jonathan Bartlett's "PGU", Jeff Duntemann's "Step by Step" are all good, but don't "get as far" as AoA. You can "read" AoA and "use" any assembler (I use AoA as a "reference" - never read it front-to-back), but it's an extra complication a beginner doesn't need! So if Ronald wants to read AoA, using HLA is "easiest". If he wants to try some other assembler (any of 'em will want to be on your "PATH", too), we'd be glad to help with that. Delighted, in fact! (if ya don't want to hear this noise, Ronald - that "aoaprogramming" group on !YAHOO!...) Best, Frank
From: santosh on 15 Jun 2008 10:05 Frank Kotler wrote: <snip> > There's a "reason" to use HLA: AoA. It's a "good" book - "extensive" > anyway. I'm not aware of anyplace else all that information is > available. Dr. Carter's "pcasm", Jonathan Bartlett's "PGU", Jeff > Duntemann's "Step by Step" are all good, but don't "get as far" as > AoA. You can "read" AoA and "use" any assembler (I use AoA as a > "reference" - never read it front-to-back), but it's an extra > complication a beginner doesn't need! So if Ronald wants to read AoA, > using HLA is "easiest". One would have to be a *very* intelligent beginner to use AoA and an assembler other than HLA to follow it. Of course AoA16 is always an option, but it's most unfashionable these days to revert to DOS. Dr. Paul Carter's book is a good introduction and multi-platform too, but you need some knowledge of C. Jonathan Bartlett's book is specifically for those wanting to learn assembler as their first language, but it uses GNU as, which some may not like, and of course, it needs Linux. Jeff Duntemann's book is also meant for absolute beginners and it starts of under DOS and moves (quite late) over to Linux, but nowhere does it go in depth. Some people may find it's pace too slow, or be left strangely frustrated after finishing it. Like in everything else, it helps if the beginner himself has some idea of what he wants (slow book, fast book, "light" book, "heavy" one, which syntax, which platform, 16 bit, 32 bit, etc.) <snip>
From: Frank Kotler on 15 Jun 2008 10:58 santosh wrote: .... > and of course, it needs Linux. Or put another way, "doesn't need Windows". :) .... > Like in everything else, it helps if the beginner himself has some idea > of what he wants (slow book, fast book, "light" book, "heavy" one, > which syntax, which platform, 16 bit, 32 bit, etc.) Good point! We definitely do have different "learning styles"... and goals. No one answer is right for everybody. Best, Frank
From: Rod Pemberton on 15 Jun 2008 17:51
"Frank Kotler" <fbkotler(a)verizon.net> wrote in message news:KP85k.7489$LN.1394(a)trndny03... > >> Don't use HLA, use an assembler. There are plenty assemblers > >> available so there is really no reason to use HLA. If you > >> want to use a HL language instead of an assembler, use C > >> and not HLA. > > > > Fully seconded from my view. > Third... not because HLA is bad or wrong, but because it's likely one will be on an environment where HLA isn't an option. Then, you need to understand real assembly - which is easier to grasp, IMO, if you learned real assembly for at least one cpu. > Only "semi-seconded" by me. I agree that "the way to learn assembly > language" is to start at a very low level - DEBUG or so - and work up > to... well, "powerful macros" and "high level constructs", if that's > what you want. You could use C, as Herbert suggests, but you can also > get some of those features in a "macro assembler", if that's what you > want to do. > Well, I've always worked from assembly. Read the manual. Learn the registers. Learn the address modes. Learn what a few instructions do. Piece the assembly together like a puzzle. Learn some more instructions. Rework. Repeat as necessary until sufficiently proficient. Not all instructions need to be memorized. Plenty are low or rare use and can be looked up if you're aware they exist, e.g., floating point. > There's a "reason" to use HLA: AoA. Well, IMO, there could be a great reason to use HLA: with slight modifications, it's syntax could be C compatible. Randall could be the first to set a standard for C compatible assembly syntax... GCC's inline AT&T syntax failed here. I think HLA would work well for non-x86 assembly also. If it's syntax compatible with C++ or Java too, then it's a great idea. But, he doesn't seem interested. As he adds support for more environments and assembly languages for other cpu's, I believe it's likely he'll eventually progress to that result via "natural" HLA development... Of course, HLA seems a bit bloated, so maybe that's not such a good idea anyway... Rod Pemberton |