On Oct 4, 6:36 pm, Evenbit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is extremely easy to answer. The average RosAsm coder tends to > only make use of the libraries documented here: > > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa383749.aspx
Which is a bit limiting, wouldn't you agree? > > If you wish to revue the source code, then bring that issue up with > Microsoft. Please let us know of any positive results. ;) Actually, at one time I *had* the NT sources on my machine (research at UCR in the OS research time). Let's just say that at 35 million lines of code (at the time, this was NT 4.0) it may as well have been closed source. :-) > > If a programmer feels that a project requires him to use a large > amount of pre-written "library" code and advanced programming features/ > tools, then he must seriously question why he is using assembly > language (rather than a High-Level Language) in the first place. Why is that? You do realize that with every OS API call you're making, you're doing exactly this -- making use of a large amount of pre-written "library" code. > After a programmer has made the choice to code at the ASM level, he > has already -- by default/definition -- decided to avoid the trappings > of the HLL world. What makes you think this? You do realize, don't you, that the *vast* majority of people who write assembly code are actually writing functions to be called from HLLs, right? And what "trappings" of the HLL world are you talking about? I've seen *very* little code posted to this group or to any assembly language site that couldn't be done in almost exactly the same way in a HLL. > > You are indeed one pecular person. On the one hand [http://www.artofasm.com > ], you have taught, written a book, built an advanced assembler, and > generally answer many questions about assembly language. However, on > the other hand, you spend a great deal of time here in alt.lang.asm > denigrating assembler tools and "bashing" those who write assembly > language. Well, I wonder why that is? > > So, the question is [this goes also for all those regular a.l.a > trolls]: Are you here to _support_ the *assembly language* > community? > Or, are you here to encourage everyone to "give up" on ASM > and adopt an easy HLL instead? I'm all for people using the appropriate tools for a given task. If an "easy HLL" is more appropriate than assembly language for the task, I'm all for having them adopt an "easy HLL" instead. The argument that all applications should be written in assembly language was lost over a decade and a half ago, I'm afraid. Although I feel that far more code should be written in assembly language than we see today, only a fool would claim that all code should be written in assembly language. Today, the main reason for learning assembly language is *not* so you can write all your code in assembly, but so that you can understand what HLL compilers are doing with your source code when they translate it into machine code. This allows you to write much better HLL source code. What's funny, despite Rene's constant dream about an "assembly rebirth" is that today people are viewing languages like C (and even C+ +) the same way assembly language was viewed 15 years ago. I suspect that in another 10 years, you'll hear the old time C programmers arguing about how programs ought to be written in C rather than in the latest gee-whiz interpreted scripting language. As much as I would like to see things turn out otherwise, the bottom line is that assembly language is really dying off. Anyone who doesn't see this just isn't paying attention. Oh sure, we had a big burst of activity when the Iczelion Tutorials were first announced, and lately there *have* been a couple of new books appear, but how many people are *truly* developing assembly language code (of any kind -- libraries, OSes, system tooks, apps, whatever)? In one resect, Rene is right. Where are all the assembly apps? And I add "written with any assembler?" Or sure, a few crackpots (myself included) still do it, but everyone in this newsgroup is out on the fringe. Though *writing* assembly language code isn't so bad, the real problem with most people is the issues of testing, debugging, and maintenance. I don't care what debugger you use, one simple fact is that debugging assembly language code is a heck of a lot more work than debugging HLL code. The reason is pretty simple -- you can't do things like screw up the stack in most HLLs; you generally get *some* sort of type checking in those HLLs that is missing from assembly (including HLA, I might add). Having just developed a test suite for the HLA stdlib, I can tell you that it's a heck of a lot more work to test and debug assembly code that it is to debug the equivalent C code. Then, on top of that, code has to be maintained. Very few projects in this world are like HLA/HLA stdlib where a single person works on the code for 10 years. In most environments, you have some senior engineers who develop something, get it working reasonably well, and then they dump the result on someone else for maintenance and enhancement. Now matter how good *you* are at assembly language, the sad fact is that most people, to whom the code is going to be dumped on later, don't know assembly language or, at best, have a passing knowledge of it. That, alone, is probably the major reason why assembly language *has died out*. Yes, there are still some *very* good reasons for learning assembly language. And for certain projects there are some good reasons why one should use assembly language. But assembly language really has become a "niche within a niche". The reasons for using assembly language today have little to do with "avoiding the trappings of a HLL." Indeed, the main reason HLLs have caught on is to avoid the trappings of assembly language. Today, there are only a few valid reasons for using assembly language on a real project. I'm kind of a special case, I use assembly language (for example, I'm writing a terminal emulator for General Atomics right now in assembly language) for a couple of reasons that have little to do with the project: 1) I enjoy working in assembly language 2) I get to further test the HLA compiler and stdlib by using it on work-related projects and then, of course, the biggie: 3) Job Security! :-) (the last is a joke, if you didn't catch on to that.) Soon, I expect to be working on a rewrite of the Triga Mark II digital console software (currently written in C under QNX4) to Linux. I'm contemplating doing this project in assembly language because it will force me to write a lot of assembly code under Linux and really shake out the HLA system under Linux. I'm currently weighing the benefits of that against the "unprofessionalism" of delivering an application written in assembly language to the next person who comes along and works on the project. Bottom line is that you want to always advocate using the right tool for the job. Some times, the right tool *is* assembly language; most of the time it is not (opinions in this newsgroup not withstanding). Yes, facilities like the HLA standard library make it possible to use assembly language where it absolutely did not make sense before, but by and large, assembly's day has passed. Now as to "denigrating tools around here", well, some tools (e.g., RosAsm) are pure crap and they do even more harm to assembly's reputation and a practical development tool. Such crap definitely deserves appropriate comments; especially when it's being pushed as a "solution" to perceived problems. One of those perceived problems, and hence this satrical thread, is this crazy notion that assembly language libraries are bad. This is absolutely insane. The only reason Rene would even make such a claim is because he's never gotten around to providing such a library for RosAsm users. If he doesn't have something, his reaction is to attack those who do. hLater, Randy Hyde -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
