How simple are newbies anyway? - Linux

This is a discussion on How simple are newbies anyway? - Linux ; High Plains Thumper writes: > Hadron wrote: >> High Plains Thumper writes: >>> JEDIDIAH wrote: >>>>> "amicus_curious" writes: >>>>>> "JEDIDIAH" wrote... >>>>>> >>>>>>> Any modern macro assembler (say, past 1985) is bound >>>>>>> to have more syntax and structural features ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 20 of 22 FirstFirst ... 10 18 19 20 21 22 LastLast
Results 381 to 400 of 422

Thread: How simple are newbies anyway?

  1. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    High Plains Thumper writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >> High Plains Thumper writes:
    >>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >>>>> "amicus_curious" writes:
    >>>>>> "JEDIDIAH" wrote...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Any modern macro assembler (say, past 1985) is bound
    >>>>>>> to have more syntax and structural features than can
    >>>>>>> be accounted for in the binary machine language that
    >>>>>>> the assembly program is translated into.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Is it too much trouble to reference even one
    >>>>>> particular?
    >>>>
    >>>> It's been quite literally decades since I've had the motivation to
    >>>> touch a macro assembler.
    >>>>
    >>>> [deletia]
    >>>>
    >>>> That might be why my previous posting didn't have a very emphatic
    >>>> tone. How you guys can be so illiterate while participating in a
    >>>> written discussion forum boggles the
    >>>> mind.
    >>>
    >>> It is to the point that to explain anything is pointless.
    >>> They are incapable of carrying on a civil conversation.

    >
    > EXAMPLE: ---+
    > |
    > |
    > |
    > V
    >
    >> So would you like to expand on what he was talking about? I do
    >> warn you though that I programmed a LOT of assembler and can
    >> assure you that Jeb's hot air is simply meaningless/so obvious
    >> its not funny.
    >>
    >> I would be particularly interested to hear about pre 1985
    >> assemblers that did NOT have more "syntax and structural
    >> features" than binary machine code....

    >
    > Sounds like you have done very little assembly. It sounds as though
    > you are confused. Binary code does not have syntax and structural
    > features.


    Err, that is exactly my point.

    So ALL assemblers, pre 1985 or not, had MORE "syntax and structural
    features" than binary machine code....

    Jesus High Plains Hypocrite , do try and keep up.

    Notice the NOT in big letters above?

  2. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?


    "High Plains Thumper" wrote in message
    news:48dd0c33$0$17068$6e1ede2f@read.cnntp.org...

    >
    > Sounds like you have done very little assembly. It sounds as though you
    > are confused. Binary code does not have syntax and structural features.
    >

    At one time there was essentially nothing but assembly at the microprocessor
    level. But things have gotten far better since then. We have C# now.

    As to binary code syntax and structure, I would argue that it has a very
    specific syntax and structure, at least for any specific processor. If you
    are saying that the instruction sets and addressing modes vary widely from
    processor processor, which directly affects the assembly language associated
    with them, then you are correct. However assembler coding is usually done
    to take maximum advantage of specific features and capabilities of specific
    processors and anyone working on one is likely so engrossed in that
    processor that no concern is ever given for any other. That is what
    compilers are for.


  3. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    "amicus_curious" writes:

    > "High Plains Thumper" wrote in
    > message news:48dd0c33$0$17068$6e1ede2f@read.cnntp.org...
    >
    >>
    >> Sounds like you have done very little assembly. It sounds as though
    >> you are confused. Binary code does not have syntax and structural
    >> features.
    >>

    > At one time there was essentially nothing but assembly at the
    > microprocessor level. But things have gotten far better since then.
    > We have C# now.
    >
    > As to binary code syntax and structure, I would argue that it has a
    > very specific syntax and structure, at least for any specific
    > processor.


    Lets assume one processor. Keep it simple for Jebb and High Plains
    Hypocrite.

    > If you are saying that the instruction sets and addressing
    > modes vary widely from processor processor, which directly affects the
    > assembly language associated with them, then you are correct. However
    > assembler coding is usually done to take maximum advantage of specific
    > features and capabilities of specific processors and anyone working on
    > one is likely so engrossed in that processor that no concern is ever
    > given for any other. That is what compilers are for.
    >


    This seems to be getting out of control.

    I'm still awaiting Jebs comments about syntax and structure of an
    assembler "pre 1985".

  4. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?


    "Matt" wrote in message
    news:vsQCk.1$AE1.0@fe101.usenetserver.com...
    >
    >
    > Oh I wouldn't propose that you write the whole OS yourself, just that you
    > would pay $100 if necessary for whatever OS were available, whether it was
    > built by saints or murderers, then get started improving your situation
    > and everybody else's.
    >

    That thought is probably too mainstream for COLA, but history shows that
    many others have thrived, at least for a period of time, by smoothing the
    way for others to obtain relief for things that Microsoft did not adequately
    provide for. The Norton Utilities come immediately to mind. I'm sure that
    you could make a long list yourself.

    What is significant here is that someone who was perhaps more clever or more
    observant than Microsoft figured out how to solve some problem and many
    others were so grateful that they paid to obtain the solution which was more
    valuable to them than its cost. I think that is the actuality for all the
    successful software programs. People continue to do this today with
    utilites offered to lighten up Vista's UAC or otherwise provide functions
    and services not included with Windows. I am sure many of these
    improvements to stock Windows are open source or otherwise offered at little
    or no cost. If you want to give something away, give it to people who see a
    need for it.

    There is a lesson to be learned here, but it is doubtful that anyone who is
    blinded by the light as is Homer would be able to understand it.


  5. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?


    "Matt" wrote in message
    news:upRCk.4$gM5.1@fe111.usenetserver.com...
    > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >
    >> (An irrelevant ramble by amicus_tippulous).

    >
    > http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html
    > FOCUS Magazine Interview with Bill Gates:
    > Microsoft Code Has No Bugs (that Microsoft cares about)


    The author was plainly out to toady up to the anti-MS crowd and missed the
    message.

    "Bug reports are statistically, therefore actually, unimportant;"

    Gates said "There are no significant bugs in our released software that any
    significant number of users want fixed." A bug can be almost anything a
    user dislikes, ranging from a missing feature to some cosmetic triviality.
    It can appear in a widespread fashion or only under some peculiar, usually
    easily avoidable, circumstances. There is nothing, Gates believes here,
    that could be construed as a show stopper that would hold up a release.


    "If you want a bug fixed, you are (by definition) in the minority; "

    The defects would be expected to affect only a very small number of users or
    else affect users in a trivial way that didn't seriously detract from the
    programs beneficial use.

    "Microsoft doesn't care about bugs because bug fixes are not a significant
    source of revenue; "

    Gates actually said "You can take a hundred people using Microsoft Word.
    Call them up and say "Would you buy a new version because of bugs?" You
    won't get a single person to say they'd buy a new version because of bugs.
    We'd never be able to sell a release on that basis." Obviously they do fix
    bugs and issue service packs (for free) at fairly frequent intervals. A new
    release, however, has to be much more that just bug fixes. It has to do
    something new and different as well as continue to do the old stuff.


    "If you think you found a bug, it really only means you're incompetent; "

    Gates didn't say that at all. He did say that anyone who thinks that they
    have found a defect should report it and that many such reports reveal that
    the user was not doing something the correct way.

    "Anyway, people only complain about bugs to show how cool they are, not
    because bugs cause any real problems."

    An awful lot of this may be true. There are many macho-geeks who pride
    themselves on their triumphs over adversity. If there was a more
    significant interest in fixing something, there would be more effort put
    into doing so. Microsoft stays ahead by pandering to the users wants,
    needs, and prejudices. If these bug were an issue, they would profit from
    it.


  6. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, amicus_curious belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > As to binary code syntax and structure, I would argue that it has a very
    > specific syntax and structure, at least for any specific processor. If you
    > are saying that the instruction sets and addressing modes vary widely from
    > processor processor, which directly affects the assembly language associated
    > with them, then you are correct. However assembler coding is usually done
    > to take maximum advantage of specific features and capabilities of specific
    > processors and anyone working on one is likely so engrossed in that
    > processor that no concern is ever given for any other. That is what
    > compilers are for.


    And the GNU assembler.

    --
    What's the MATTER Sid? ... Is your BEVERAGE unsatisfactory?

  7. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?


  8. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Hadron wrote:
    > High Plains Thumper writes:


    >>> I would be particularly interested to hear about pre 1985
    >>> assemblers that did NOT have more "syntax and structural
    >>> features" than binary machine code....

    >> Sounds like you have done very little assembly. It sounds as though
    >> you are confused. Binary code does not have syntax and structural
    >> features.

    >
    > Err, that is exactly my point.



    Not clear what you guys mean here. Obviously binary code has structural
    features. It may not be easy to read, but it is not random bits. It
    can be disassembled. It has syntax. You can write a parser for it.


    > So ALL assemblers, pre 1985 or not, had MORE "syntax and structural
    > features" than binary machine code....
    >
    > Jesus High Plains Hypocrite , do try and keep up.
    >
    > Notice the NOT in big letters above?


  9. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Matt writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >> High Plains Thumper writes:

    >
    >>>> I would be particularly interested to hear about pre 1985
    >>>> assemblers that did NOT have more "syntax and structural
    >>>> features" than binary machine code....
    >>> Sounds like you have done very little assembly. It sounds as though
    >>> you are confused. Binary code does not have syntax and structural
    >>> features.

    >>
    >> Err, that is exactly my point.

    >
    >
    > Not clear what you guys mean here. Obviously binary code has
    > structural features. It may not be easy to read, but it is not random


    "may not be easy to read"

    Good.

    We're getting somewhere.

    So now lets get back to Jebs assertion that pre 85, assemblers do not
    have more syntax and structural features than neat binary opcodes and
    data.

    It's farcical.

    > bits. It can be disassembled. It has syntax. You can write a parser
    > for it.


    >
    >
    >> So ALL assemblers, pre 1985 or not, had MORE "syntax and structural
    >> features" than binary machine code....
    >>
    >> Jesus High Plains Hypocrite , do try and keep up.
    >>
    >> Notice the NOT in big letters above?


    --
    "If you take both of those factors together then WinXP is a flop, selling
    *less* than Win 98 by a factor of two."
    comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they the lunacy in advocacy

  10. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Hadron wrote:

    > Matt writes:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>> High Plains Thumper writes:

    >>
    >>>>> I would be particularly interested to hear about pre 1985
    >>>>> assemblers that did NOT have more "syntax and structural
    >>>>> features" than binary machine code....
    >>>> Sounds like you have done very little assembly. It sounds as though
    >>>> you are confused. Binary code does not have syntax and structural
    >>>> features.
    >>>
    >>> Err, that is exactly my point.

    >>
    >>
    >> Not clear what you guys mean here. Obviously binary code has
    >> structural features. It may not be easy to read, but it is not random

    >
    > "may not be easy to read"
    >
    > Good.
    >
    > We're getting somewhere.


    No. We have been there from day one
    With Bill Weisgerber and Snot Michael Glasser trying to invent a different
    story here. About "one-to-one" mappings, for example. Which obviously does
    not exist for this "direction" (binary to assembler code), yet both of
    those nimwits (assisted by you, Hadron Quark) tried to sell as the same as
    assembler code -> binary code

    > So now lets get back to Jebs assertion that pre 85, assemblers do not
    > have more syntax and structural features than neat binary opcodes and
    > data.
    >
    > It's farcical.


    Lets back up your claim that it was a "assertion". Instead of just a date he
    suggested.

    Maybe he is not yet old enough to have experience with anything older than
    that. Most in this group are not. After all, it would be a 25 years old
    tool

    --
    Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats
    you with experience...


  11. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    "Peter Köhlmann" stated in post
    48debaa1$0$6600$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net on 9/27/08 3:58 PM:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Matt writes:
    >>
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>> High Plains Thumper writes:
    >>>
    >>>>>> I would be particularly interested to hear about pre 1985
    >>>>>> assemblers that did NOT have more "syntax and structural
    >>>>>> features" than binary machine code....
    >>>>> Sounds like you have done very little assembly. It sounds as though
    >>>>> you are confused. Binary code does not have syntax and structural
    >>>>> features.
    >>>>
    >>>> Err, that is exactly my point.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Not clear what you guys mean here. Obviously binary code has
    >>> structural features. It may not be easy to read, but it is not random

    >>
    >> "may not be easy to read"
    >>
    >> Good.
    >>
    >> We're getting somewhere.

    >
    > No. We have been there from day one
    > With Bill Weisgerber and Snot Michael Glasser trying to invent a different
    > story here. About "one-to-one" mappings, for example. Which obviously does
    > not exist for this "direction" (binary to assembler code), yet both of
    > those nimwits (assisted by you, Hadron Quark) tried to sell as the same as
    > assembler code -> binary code
    >
    >> So now lets get back to Jebs assertion that pre 85, assemblers do not
    >> have more syntax and structural features than neat binary opcodes and
    >> data.
    >>
    >> It's farcical.

    >
    > Lets back up your claim that it was a "assertion". Instead of just a date he
    > suggested.
    >
    > Maybe he is not yet old enough to have experience with anything older than
    > that. Most in this group are not. After all, it would be a 25 years old
    > tool
    >


    Learn what one-to-one means, Peter.


    --
    The fact that OS X is growing and Linux isn't, tells you that OS X is
    offering things that Linux is not.
    - Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)


  12. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Peter Köhlmann writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Matt writes:
    >>
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>> High Plains Thumper writes:
    >>>
    >>>>>> I would be particularly interested to hear about pre 1985
    >>>>>> assemblers that did NOT have more "syntax and structural
    >>>>>> features" than binary machine code....
    >>>>> Sounds like you have done very little assembly. It sounds as though
    >>>>> you are confused. Binary code does not have syntax and structural
    >>>>> features.
    >>>>
    >>>> Err, that is exactly my point.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Not clear what you guys mean here. Obviously binary code has
    >>> structural features. It may not be easy to read, but it is not random

    >>
    >> "may not be easy to read"
    >>
    >> Good.
    >>
    >> We're getting somewhere.

    >
    > No. We have been there from day one
    > With Bill Weisgerber and Snot Michael Glasser trying to invent a different
    > story here. About "one-to-one" mappings, for example. Which obviously does
    > not exist for this "direction" (binary to assembler code), yet both of
    > those nimwits (assisted by you, Hadron Quark) tried to sell as the same as
    > assembler code -> binary code


    Dont tell lies. I merely pointed out that if you have the start point
    and its not self modifying its not inconceivable to disassemble it.

    And unlike the others I have done a lot of assembler programming and
    dont disagree with you too much in this thread.

    >
    >> So now lets get back to Jebs assertion that pre 85, assemblers do not
    >> have more syntax and structural features than neat binary opcodes and
    >> data.
    >>
    >> It's farcical.

    >
    > Lets back up your claim that it was a "assertion". Instead of just a date he
    > suggested.
    >
    > Maybe he is not yet old enough to have experience with anything older than
    > that. Most in this group are not. After all, it would be a 25 years old
    > tool


    You seem to have missed the point or are telling lies. The date is
    immaterial.

    ,----
    | >> So now lets get back to Jebs assertion that pre 85, assemblers do not
    | >> have more syntax and structural features than neat binary opcodes and
    | >> data.
    `----

    You know full well that is totally bull****.

  13. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Matt wrote:
    > Hadron wrote:
    >> High Plains Thumper writes:
    >>
    >>>> I would be particularly interested to hear about pre
    >>>> 1985 assemblers that did NOT have more "syntax and
    >>>> structural features" than binary machine code....
    >>>
    >>> Sounds like you have done very little assembly. It sounds
    >>> as though you are confused. Binary code does not have
    >>> syntax and structural features.

    >>
    >> Err, that is exactly my point.

    >
    > Not clear what you guys mean here. Obviously binary code has
    > structural features. It may not be easy to read, but it is
    > not random bits. It can be disassembled. It has syntax. You
    > can write a parser for it.


    True, but it is just that. There are no labels such as entry
    points, variable, array, or scalar names, unless one purposely
    puts these as say, embedded non-executed ASCII comments.

    Of course, the binary will reflect good design practises in
    assembler.

    Reverse engineering something that was coded from assembly is
    easier than that from a compiled language.

    >> So ALL assemblers, pre 1985 or not, had MORE "syntax and
    >> structural features" than binary machine code....
    >>
    >> Jesus High Plains Hypocrite , do try and keep up.


    This is uncalled for and is an example of:

    http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killf..._troll_faq.htm

    Subject: 3.4 The nasty Troll

    If anyone does anything which will interfere with the
    troll's ability to cause mayhem, they can become very
    nasty, posting from obviously incorrect variations of the
    name etc. insults, call them netcops, netnannies,
    homosexuals.

    >> Notice the NOT in big letters above?


    ^
    |
    |
    |
    EXAMPLE ---+

    --
    HPT

  14. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    The liar Michael Glasser (Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Brock McNuggets) snotted:

    > "Peter Köhlmann" stated in post
    > 48debaa1$0$6600$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net on 9/27/08 3:58 PM:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> Matt writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>>> High Plains Thumper writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>>>> I would be particularly interested to hear about pre 1985
    >>>>>>> assemblers that did NOT have more "syntax and structural
    >>>>>>> features" than binary machine code....
    >>>>>> Sounds like you have done very little assembly. It sounds as though
    >>>>>> you are confused. Binary code does not have syntax and structural
    >>>>>> features.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Err, that is exactly my point.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Not clear what you guys mean here. Obviously binary code has
    >>>> structural features. It may not be easy to read, but it is not random
    >>>
    >>> "may not be easy to read"
    >>>
    >>> Good.
    >>>
    >>> We're getting somewhere.

    >>
    >> No. We have been there from day one
    >> With Bill Weisgerber and Snot Michael Glasser trying to invent a
    >> different story here. About "one-to-one" mappings, for example. Which
    >> obviously does not exist for this "direction" (binary to assembler code),
    >> yet both of those nimwits (assisted by you, Hadron Quark) tried to sell
    >> as the same as assembler code -> binary code
    >>
    >>> So now lets get back to Jebs assertion that pre 85, assemblers do not
    >>> have more syntax and structural features than neat binary opcodes and
    >>> data.
    >>>
    >>> It's farcical.

    >>
    >> Lets back up your claim that it was a "assertion". Instead of just a date
    >> he suggested.
    >>
    >> Maybe he is not yet old enough to have experience with anything older
    >> than that. Most in this group are not. After all, it would be a 25 years
    >> old tool
    >>

    >
    > Learn what one-to-one means, Peter.
    >
    >


    I know what it means, Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser.
    I have programmed *years* in assembler language.

    You on the other hand would not even know how asembler code looks like,
    being the most incompetent "IT teacher" of all time
    --
    Proposed Additions to the PDP-11 Instruction Set:

    CMFRM Come From -- essential for truly structured programming
    CPPR Crumple Printer Paper and Rip


  15. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    "Hadron" stated in post
    gbn1ad$ad6$1@registered.motzarella.org on 9/27/08 9:31 PM:

    >> No. We have been there from day one
    >> With Bill Weisgerber and Snot Michael Glasser trying to invent a different
    >> story here. About "one-to-one" mappings, for example. Which obviously does
    >> not exist for this "direction" (binary to assembler code), yet both of
    >> those nimwits (assisted by you, Hadron Quark) tried to sell as the same as
    >> assembler code -> binary code

    >
    > Dont tell lies. I merely pointed out that if you have the start point
    > and its not self modifying its not inconceivable to disassemble it.
    >
    > And unlike the others I have done a lot of assembler programming and
    > dont disagree with you too much in this thread.


    My only point in this thread was pointing out Peter's error:

    Peter Köhlmann:
    Your ignorance betrays you, amicus_incongruous. "Assembly
    code" != machine code".
    amicus_curious
    One for one isn't it?
    Peter Köhlmann:
    Nice try. Not even close

    I provided plenty of support showing he was wrong to say amicus curious was
    "not even close". Peter has - as is his norm - been lashing out ever since.

    He made a mistake. We all do.

    But he deals with his very, very poorly.


    --
    Never stand between a dog and the hydrant. - John Peers


  16. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Hadron wrote:

    > Peter Köhlmann writes:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> Matt writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>>> High Plains Thumper writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>>>> I would be particularly interested to hear about pre 1985
    >>>>>>> assemblers that did NOT have more "syntax and structural
    >>>>>>> features" than binary machine code....
    >>>>>> Sounds like you have done very little assembly. It sounds as though
    >>>>>> you are confused. Binary code does not have syntax and structural
    >>>>>> features.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Err, that is exactly my point.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Not clear what you guys mean here. Obviously binary code has
    >>>> structural features. It may not be easy to read, but it is not random
    >>>
    >>> "may not be easy to read"
    >>>
    >>> Good.
    >>>
    >>> We're getting somewhere.

    >>
    >> No. We have been there from day one
    >> With Bill Weisgerber and Snot Michael Glasser trying to invent a
    >> different story here. About "one-to-one" mappings, for example. Which
    >> obviously does not exist for this "direction" (binary to assembler code),
    >> yet both of those nimwits (assisted by you, Hadron Quark) tried to sell
    >> as the same as assembler code -> binary code

    >
    > Dont tell lies. I merely pointed out that if you have the start point
    > and its not self modifying its not inconceivable to disassemble it.


    You mean assembler programs equivalent to "hello world"?
    Most assembler apps contain data, or jump tables consisting of addresses
    only.
    Practically all disassemblers stumble on such constructs, and output
    gibberish for lots of lines until they sync again.
    In practically all apps the disassembler needs a lot of human input to
    reconstruct the code.
    Don't tell such idiotic simplifications. Leave that to nimwits like Bill
    Weisgerber or Snot Michael Glasser, who both comnbined still know less
    about assembler code than any maggot

    > And unlike the others I have done a lot of assembler programming and
    > dont disagree with you too much in this thread.


    Would be difficult to. You would have to snip everything and insert bull****
    like Michael Glasser had to. And look as idiotic as he did then

    >>
    >>> So now lets get back to Jebs assertion that pre 85, assemblers do not
    >>> have more syntax and structural features than neat binary opcodes and
    >>> data.
    >>>
    >>> It's farcical.

    >>
    >> Lets back up your claim that it was a "assertion". Instead of just a date
    >> he suggested.
    >>
    >> Maybe he is not yet old enough to have experience with anything older
    >> than that. Most in this group are not. After all, it would be a 25 years
    >> old tool

    >
    > You seem to have missed the point or are telling lies. The date is
    > immaterial.


    It is not. Anyone who now is around 35 for example will probably not even
    heard of, much less /seen/ a Z80 Macro assembler, for example (I have
    written one myself, BTW. Including support for all of the +500 undocumented
    opcodes and support for the additional instructions of the Hitachi 64180)

    > ,----
    > | >> So now lets get back to Jebs assertion that pre 85, assemblers do not
    > | >> have more syntax and structural features than neat binary opcodes and
    > | >> data.
    > `----
    >
    > You know full well that is totally bull****.


    Right. What you wrote is bull****. It is *your* interpretation of what was
    written

    --
    Another name for a Windows tutorial is crash course


  17. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    Peter Köhlmann writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Peter Köhlmann writes:
    >>
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Matt writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>>>> High Plains Thumper writes:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I would be particularly interested to hear about pre 1985
    >>>>>>>> assemblers that did NOT have more "syntax and structural
    >>>>>>>> features" than binary machine code....
    >>>>>>> Sounds like you have done very little assembly. It sounds as though
    >>>>>>> you are confused. Binary code does not have syntax and structural
    >>>>>>> features.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Err, that is exactly my point.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Not clear what you guys mean here. Obviously binary code has
    >>>>> structural features. It may not be easy to read, but it is not random
    >>>>
    >>>> "may not be easy to read"
    >>>>
    >>>> Good.
    >>>>
    >>>> We're getting somewhere.
    >>>
    >>> No. We have been there from day one
    >>> With Bill Weisgerber and Snot Michael Glasser trying to invent a
    >>> different story here. About "one-to-one" mappings, for example. Which
    >>> obviously does not exist for this "direction" (binary to assembler code),
    >>> yet both of those nimwits (assisted by you, Hadron Quark) tried to sell
    >>> as the same as assembler code -> binary code

    >>
    >> Dont tell lies. I merely pointed out that if you have the start point
    >> and its not self modifying its not inconceivable to disassemble it.

    >
    > You mean assembler programs equivalent to "hello world"?
    > Most assembler apps contain data, or jump tables consisting of addresses
    > only.
    > Practically all disassemblers stumble on such constructs, and output
    > gibberish for lots of lines until they sync again.
    > In practically all apps the disassembler needs a lot of human input to
    > reconstruct the code.
    > Don't tell such idiotic simplifications. Leave that to nimwits like Bill
    > Weisgerber or Snot Michael Glasser, who both comnbined still know less
    > about assembler code than any maggot
    >
    >> And unlike the others I have done a lot of assembler programming and
    >> dont disagree with you too much in this thread.

    >
    > Would be difficult to. You would have to snip everything and insert bull****
    > like Michael Glasser had to. And look as idiotic as he did then
    >
    >>>
    >>>> So now lets get back to Jebs assertion that pre 85, assemblers do not
    >>>> have more syntax and structural features than neat binary opcodes and
    >>>> data.
    >>>>
    >>>> It's farcical.
    >>>
    >>> Lets back up your claim that it was a "assertion". Instead of just a date
    >>> he suggested.
    >>>
    >>> Maybe he is not yet old enough to have experience with anything older
    >>> than that. Most in this group are not. After all, it would be a 25 years
    >>> old tool

    >>
    >> You seem to have missed the point or are telling lies. The date is
    >> immaterial.

    >
    > It is not. Anyone who now is around 35 for example will probably not even
    > heard of, much less /seen/ a Z80 Macro assembler, for example (I have
    > written one myself, BTW. Including support for all of the +500 undocumented
    > opcodes and support for the additional instructions of the Hitachi
    > 64180)


    For zarks sake. This is NOT THE POINT.

    The point in contention is this:

    ,----
    | >>>> So now lets get back to Jebs assertion that pre 85, assemblers do not
    | >>>> have more syntax and structural features than neat binary opcodes and
    | >>>> data.
    `----

    That. Nothing more. Nothing less.

    ANY assembler had "more syntax and structural features than neat
    binary opcodes".

    Unless you dont think this z80 code

    "LD A,3 # 3 is the code to clear memory when calling sysfunc"

    does not have more syntax and structure than

    3e01

    for example.

    Believe it or not I think we are in agreement but you are too shocked to
    realise it....

    Normally I would not bother to answer such ridiculous claims but its
    important that Jebs invariably ignorant musings are revealed for what
    they are!


  18. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    "Peter Köhlmann" stated in post
    48df1aec$0$16888$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net on 9/27/08 10:49 PM:

    >>> Lets back up your claim that it was a "assertion". Instead of just a date he
    >>> suggested.
    >>>
    >>> Maybe he is not yet old enough to have experience with anything older than
    >>> that. Most in this group are not. After all, it would be a 25 years old tool
    >>>

    >> Learn what one-to-one means, Peter.
    >>

    > I know what it means, Snot/Snit/Rekruled/Michael Glasser.
    >

    If you did, Peter, you would not sink to such BS as you do right there -
    accusing me of posting as Rekruled and posting other silly name calling.

    You have shown you think a one-to-one relationship is unidirectional, which
    by definition it is not... a one-to-one relationship is bidirectional by
    *definition*.

    > I have programmed *years* in assembler language.
    >

    So you say, but you make novice level errors such as:

    Peter Köhlmann:
    Your ignorance betrays you, amicus_incongruous. "Assembly
    code" != machine code".
    amicus_curious
    One for one isn't it?
    Peter Köhlmann:
    Nice try. Not even close

    Absurd! As I have shown with multiple resources. You repeatedly accuse me
    of being incompetent - as you prove you are.

    ....


    --
    I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please
    everyone. -- Bill Cosby


  19. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    "Peter Köhlmann" stated in post
    48df3cee$0$6586$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net on 9/28/08 1:14 AM:

    ....
    >> Dont tell lies. I merely pointed out that if you have the start point
    >> and its not self modifying its not inconceivable to disassemble it.

    >
    > You mean assembler programs equivalent to "hello world"?
    > Most assembler apps contain data, or jump tables consisting of addresses
    > only.
    > Practically all disassemblers stumble on such constructs, and output
    > gibberish for lots of lines until they sync again.
    > In practically all apps the disassembler needs a lot of human input to
    > reconstruct the code.
    > Don't tell such idiotic simplifications. Leave that to nimwits like Bill
    > Weisgerber or Snot Michael Glasser, who both comnbined still know less
    > about assembler code than any maggot


    I do not claim to be a programmer of any sort... so why do you bring up my
    name there?

    >> And unlike the others I have done a lot of assembler programming and
    >> dont disagree with you too much in this thread.

    >
    > Would be difficult to. You would have to snip everything and insert bull****
    > like Michael Glasser had to. And look as idiotic as he did then


    I snip your irrelevant BS and point out your error:

    Peter Köhlmann:
    Your ignorance betrays you, amicus_incongruous. "Assembly
    code" != machine code".
    amicus_curious
    One for one isn't it?
    Peter Köhlmann:
    Nice try. Not even close

    Given how nasty you are I enjoy watching you run from that. You have -
    again - made a fool of yourself as you pretend to have some technical
    knowledge.

    ....


    --
    "If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson




  20. Re: How simple are newbies anyway?

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Peter Köhlmann belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >> Dont tell lies. I merely pointed out that if you have the start point
    >> and its not self modifying its not inconceivable to disassemble it.

    >
    > You mean assembler programs equivalent to "hello world"? Most
    > assembler apps contain data, or jump tables consisting of addresses
    > only. Practically all disassemblers stumble on such constructs, and
    > output gibberish for lots of lines until they sync again. In
    > practically all apps the disassembler needs a lot of human input to
    > reconstruct the code.


    That's about as clear an explanation we're going to get in this thread.
    Thanks, Peter.

    > Don't tell such idiotic simplifications. Leave
    > that to nimwits like Bill Weisgerber or Snot Michael Glasser, who both
    > comnbined still know less about assembler code than any maggot
    >
    >> And unlike the others I have done a lot of assembler programming and
    >> dont disagree with you too much in this thread.

    >
    > Would be difficult to. You would have to snip everything and insert
    > bull**** like Michael Glasser had to. And look as idiotic as he did
    > then
    >>
    >> You seem to have missed the point or are telling lies. The date is
    >> immaterial.

    >
    > It is not. Anyone who now is around 35 for example will probably not even
    > heard of, much less /seen/ a Z80 Macro assembler, for example (I have
    > written one myself, BTW. Including support for all of the +500 undocumented
    > opcodes and support for the additional instructions of the Hitachi 64180)


    First assembler I ever did was around 1974, on a PDP/8 "Edusystem".
    That was after first learning to toggle in the bootstrap code.
    (Just establishing my age).

    --
    His mind is like a steel trap: full of mice.
    -- Foghorn Leghorn

+ Reply to Thread
Page 20 of 22 FirstFirst ... 10 18 19 20 21 22 LastLast