hla set up for the art of assembly
in [ASM]
|
From: Evenbit on 15 Jun 2008 20:22 On Jun 15, 5:51 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...(a)nohavenot.cmm> wrote: > 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 Hmmm?????? How is the situation different when using another assembler? People sure do enjoy making up (out of thin air) reasons to bash on HLA. Gives the appearance that diehard ASMers are actually *affraid* of HLA. Now, why would this be? Is it because HLA provides an easy entry-point for outsiders to join the sacred ranks of the ASM-cadre?? Nathan.
From: Rod Pemberton on 16 Jun 2008 02:43 "Evenbit" <nbaker2328(a)charter.net> wrote in message news:980e6694-1189-4787-acfb-213309b2fb6d(a)y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 15, 5:51 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...(a)nohavenot.cmm> wrote: > > 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 > > Hmmm?????? > Only the even bits click on, today? ;-) RP: > > Well, IMO, there could be a great reason to use HLA: with slight > > modifications, it's syntax could be C compatible. -- > How is the situation different when using another assembler? "different"? Don't you mean similar? The point was that HLA's syntax is much more like C and very different from any existing or obsolescent assembler... x86 or not (i.e., even 6502 assembly was far closer to modern x86 and NASM than HLA is...). So, it's easier to adapt from one assembler to another. It'd be easier to adapt to C from HLA than from HLA to (non-HLA) assembly. It'd be difficult to adapt to Pascal from HLA. > People sure do enjoy making up (out of thin air) reasons to bash on > HLA. Whoa... Where did I bash? Where did I make up something out of thin air? Was this a general comment directed at everyone who replied? (You used "people" but responded to me... implying I was involved also.) I suggested a useful purpose for HLA: > > Randall could be the > > first to set a standard for C compatible assembly syntax... Randall has stated that HLA is _only_ a teaching tool (on numerous occasions)... including to me when I suggested it could have a higher purpose such as a general C assembler. (i.e., even he doesn't believe it's a real assembler. Need one of these quotes? Yeah, you do: "I've now used HLA it [sic, in] two assembly language classes at UC Riverside and found the language to be a much better teaching tool than straight assembly language." - Randall Hyde, clax 3/20/00. Do you think anything has changed his perspective on HLA in eight years?) Okay, so we have to call assembly: "real assembly" because of HLA being promoted as assembly, but RH calls "real assembly": "straight assembly language" because he knows HLA isn't "straight assembly language". Maybe we're miscommunicating with Randall... His use of "straight" also implies HLA is "deviant" assembly at best, doesn't it? You also have to question, as I did of RH previously, how well someone is going to learn assembly if not self-taught in their early teens... Teaching someone assembly at a such a late stage isn't going to produce promising results. > Gives the appearance that diehard ASMers are actually *affraid* [sic, *afraid*] > of HLA. Not sure how you came to that conclusion from my statements. I prefer C, followed by assembly. All other languages I've tried have limitations or push additional problems onto the programmer. > Gives the appearance that diehard ASMers are actually *affraid* > of HLA. Now, why would this be? No idea. Like I said, it could be useful as a C syntax compatible assembler. But, I see no reason why a non-C programmer would embrace HLA... Do you? Don't you think it's too different from other assemblers? Don't you think it's similar to C? Don't you think it's too different from Pascal? Don't you think it's syntax deviates too much from that already standardized by Intel (and/or AMD) and Microsoft for x86 assembly? I do. > Is it because HLA provides an easy > entry-point for outsiders to join the sacred ranks of the ASM-cadre?? Are you saying HLA is easier than NASM for assembly? From the HLA examples I've seen, I'd have to wholeheartedly disagree with you. They're far closer to C and don't have a nice clean syntax like NASM. I'm not saying poor syntax is an exceptionally bad thing - I do just fine with GNU AS and GCC's inline assembly. But, the poor syntax wastes my time, creates confusion, leads to errors, etc. I still recall a friend who wouldn't stop talking about LISP. Months and months of LISP...! Six to eight months later, I very reluctantly asked about LISP. He wasn't raving anymore. He was upset: "Lost In Stupid Parenthesis"... mumble... mumble... He wanted to make simple change to his code, but he couldn't figure it out. I then learned he'd been trying to fix the problem for about week. Last I heard, he had to rewrite it all - to fix one simple problem. This is just one of many examples about the problems that arise from poor syntax. FORTH, while free from syntax error messages, is another language where insufficient context from lack of syntax can be confusing. It's frequently quite difficult to understand - it's not much more than an AST. A couple of nested IF-ELSE-THEN's will do it for most people (There's no real way to tell which ELSE block goes with which IF without rewriting the code in an indented style since there is no syntax.). The lack of variables for others (Hey, they're _all_ on the stack... Typesystem? What typesystem? That'll knock a few C heads for a loop!). Rod Pemberton
From: Evenbit on 16 Jun 2008 04:28 On Jun 16, 2:43 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...(a)nohavenot.cmm> wrote: > > On Jun 15, 5:51 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...(a)nohavenot.cmm> wrote: > > > 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 > [[ snipped trollish blabber ]] I will give you another chance to answer the question. This time, do try to stay on topic. What do you mean by environment? Are you talking about OS?? If so, HLA is available for all the OSen that Nasm covers. Are you talking about bitness?? Okay, the Nasm/Fasm/Yasm boys have the edge in 64-bit support. Are you talking about CPU?? If so, it doesn't matter which tool one uses for writing x86 assembly -- all of them are equally guilty of making one ill-prepared for coding for a 68000, 8581, 6502, etc... Sorry to have burned your strawman. :) Nathan.
From: Phil Carmody on 16 Jun 2008 05:24 Evenbit <nbaker2328(a)charter.net> writes: > On Jun 15, 5:51 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...(a)nohavenot.cmm> wrote: >> 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 > > Hmmm?????? > > How is the situation different when using another assembler? > > People sure do enjoy making up (out of thin air) reasons to bash on > HLA. Gives the appearance that diehard ASMers are actually *affraid* > of HLA. I don't like champagne. Does that mean I'm afraid of champagne? Since when have all simple statements of preference been obliged to be covering an ulterior motive? > Now, why would this be? Is it because HLA provides an easy > entry-point for outsiders to join the sacred ranks of the ASM-cadre?? No. It's because they perceive it doesn't do that. Phil -- Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all. -- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration
From: Phil Carmody on 16 Jun 2008 05:58
Evenbit <nbaker2328(a)charter.net> writes: > On Jun 16, 2:43 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...(a)nohavenot.cmm> wrote: >> > On Jun 15, 5:51 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...(a)nohavenot.cmm> wrote: >> > > 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 >> > > [[ snipped trollish blabber ]] > > I will give you another chance to answer the question. This time, do > try to stay on topic. > > What do you mean by environment? I thought that was obvious... > Are you talking about OS?? If so, HLA is available for all the OSen > that Nasm covers. I didn't suspect it was that. > Are you talking about bitness?? Okay, the Nasm/Fasm/Yasm boys have > the edge in 64-bit support. I didn't think it was that either. > Are you talking about CPU?? If so, it doesn't matter which tool one > uses for writing x86 assembly -- all of them are equally guilty of > making one ill-prepared for coding for a 68000, 8581, 6502, etc... Nope, that didn't go through my mind either. Rod's post, or at least the bit you quoted, makes perfect sense, all you have to do it think a little bit more about it. > Sorry to have burned your strawman. :) You don't even have a spark, currently. And Rod's argument is more bricks and mortar than straw. Phil -- Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all. -- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration |