flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Does NASM have too much C?

Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
fasmnewbie



Joined: 01 Mar 2011
Posts: 553
fasmnewbie
PeExecutable wrote:
I am lazy at times, will check it out Very Happy


Master Keep your head down when you talk to one of the finest assembly MASTER programmer in the world. Most of them are FASM members now. They abandoned your favorite assembler long time ago. Too much C they say.
Post 27 Jun 2015, 18:18
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
PeExecutable



Joined: 26 Jun 2015
Posts: 181
PeExecutable
I don't appreciate that you're telling me this, because I already know that it's written in C. I have come to understand that those who primarily like a fast assembler, doesn't like big projects and vice versa. Those who think a fast assembler is irrelevant, usually like big projects.

Those who seem to only care about the assembly phase and how fast it performs, aren't usually the same people who enjoy large projects, because in large projects you're going to have to be patient either way you like it or not.

You have a wrong focus mindset, in my humble opinion. A fast assembler is nice, but you, you seem to be obsessed with only that and it says something about how big your projects have been. (8 kb final executable at most?)

This is something you just can not get away from. In large projects, if you have ever been in one, the least worry is how long it takes to compile it. And if you're worried about that, you've never been in one.

Do you know what we people do when we build a large project? We type the command, press enter, and we drink a cup of coffee for one minute.

And after you press enter and you take a slurp from the coffee cup, the whole screen fills up and scrolls downward with module names, a hundred miles long list. And that one minute is not a waste of time, the final executable will execute a heck of a lot faster than it compiles. One minute of your life is wasted, but it's worth it.

You basically have two choices as a programmer. You can care about two things:

1: You can care about 1 millisecond compile time, which isn't going to bother anyone who intend to use your program.

2: You couldn't care less about one minute of coffee-time, which isn't going to bother anyone out there who intend to use your program.

It seems to me, fasmnewbie, that your philosophy, or your thinking goes in this direction:

1. If it compiles for a second or two you're thinking "I absolutely hate this, totally"

People like myself and many others are thinking this:

"Wow, I absolutely love all the work it is doing for me, this is beautiful, watching the compilation process is so much fun"

And when it is done compiling, I look at the final product, which is much prettier than the compilation process. "Thanks for the great service, I tell the compiler"

There comes a time in your life where you absolutely just trashes all of your impatience, you just trash it, for the one goal of getting what you want, and everything else is irrelevant.


Last edited by PeExecutable on 27 Jun 2015, 18:58; edited 1 time in total
Post 27 Jun 2015, 18:35
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fasmnewbie



Joined: 01 Mar 2011
Posts: 553
fasmnewbie
PeExecutable wrote:

Do you know what we people do when we compile a large project? We type the command, press enter, and we drink a cup of coffee for one minute.


Well, that's slow by FASM standard. KolibriOS is a 'large project' from one of FASM enthusiast that boots under 2 second and fit into a single Floppy Disk.

That's what happened when you share C disease and incorporate it into NASM. You think '1' minute is fast. And you thought "NASM bloatedness"="large project".
Post 27 Jun 2015, 18:57
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
PeExecutable



Joined: 26 Jun 2015
Posts: 181
PeExecutable
How many minutes of compile time is too much? Be realistic here. Tell the forum how long is too long. I want you to give a time which is suitable, in seconds or in minutes.
Post 27 Jun 2015, 19:00
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fasmnewbie



Joined: 01 Mar 2011
Posts: 553
fasmnewbie
PeExecutable wrote:

A good principle is: 1. If something is frequently needed, standardize it and put it in code instead of having people do it in macros.


Just because of your inability to use cmp/jxx construct properly, now you want the macro to compensate for your lack of incompetency via macro? You must be one of the worse assembly programmer in the world I've ever known.

A piece of advise I qoute from Hutch (modified): "FASM is not for the faint of heart. If you found it to be too much, take server-side scripting".
Post 27 Jun 2015, 19:11
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
PeExecutable



Joined: 26 Jun 2015
Posts: 181
PeExecutable
fasmnewbie wrote:
PeExecutable wrote:

A good principle is: 1. If something is frequently needed, standardize it and put it in code instead of having people do it in macros.


Just because of your inability to use cmp/jxx construct properly, now you want the macro to compensate for your lack of incompetency via macro? You must be one of the worse assembly programmer in the world I've ever known.

A piece of advise I qoute from Hutch (modified): "FASM is not for the faint of heart. If you found it to be too much, take server-side scripting".


I think that you got a very wrong view about my opinions, being eccentric is not bad, but being productive isn't worse than being eccentric.

And I guarantee you that hutch said that because he is irritated with some statements out there, he doesn't literally mean it. Hutch is a man of many tools.

This apparently is a religion to you, and it's not healthy to discuss something if it is a religion to you. You have your assembler, I have an assembler, we're both fine. Put your time in using it instead of putting down people's opinions.


Last edited by PeExecutable on 27 Jun 2015, 19:18; edited 1 time in total
Post 27 Jun 2015, 19:15
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fasmnewbie



Joined: 01 Mar 2011
Posts: 553
fasmnewbie
PeExecutable wrote:
How many minutes of compile time is too much? Be realistic here. Tell the forum how long is too long. I want you to give a time which is suitable, in seconds or in minutes.


Why you sound so surprised? This is assembly programming we are talking about where things are measured in micro, nano and milliseconds. Even Java don't compile that long. I bet you must come from a NASM-bloatedness culture where 1 minute compile time is considered a glory.

Have you donated to FASM yet?
Post 27 Jun 2015, 19:17
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
PeExecutable



Joined: 26 Jun 2015
Posts: 181
PeExecutable
fasmnewbie wrote:
PeExecutable wrote:
How many minutes of compile time is too much? Be realistic here. Tell the forum how long is too long. I want you to give a time which is suitable, in seconds or in minutes.


Why you sound so surprised? This is assembly programming we are talking about where things are measured in micro, nano and milliseconds. Even Java don't compile that long. I bet you must come from a NASM-bloatedness culture where 1 minute compile time is considered a glory.

Have you donated to FASM yet?


I guarantee you that my "bloated" code runs faster than yours, so be a little bit more humble. Whatever I have made in NASM runs faster than your code. And I'm ready to compete speed-wise anytime you want. In nanoseconds of course. Just put it out there and I'll beat it.
Post 27 Jun 2015, 19:20
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fasmnewbie



Joined: 01 Mar 2011
Posts: 553
fasmnewbie
PeExecutable wrote:
fasmnewbie wrote:
PeExecutable wrote:

A good principle is: 1. If something is frequently needed, standardize it and put it in code instead of having people do it in macros.


Just because of your inability to use cmp/jxx construct properly, now you want the macro to compensate for your lack of incompetency via macro? You must be one of the worse assembly programmer in the world I've ever known.

A piece of advise I qoute from Hutch (modified): "FASM is not for the faint of heart. If you found it to be too much, take server-side scripting".


I think that you got a very wrong view about my opinions, being eccentric is not bad, but being productive isn't worse than being eccentric.

And I guarantee you that hutch said that because he is irritated with some statements out there, he doesn't literally mean it. Hutch is a man of many tools.

This apparently is a religion to you, and it's not healthy to discuss something if it is a religion to you. You have your assembler, I have an assembler, we're both fine. Put your time in using it instead of putting down people's opinions.


Hutch is a member of FASM board. So is Frank Kotler. But they don't get offended by threads like this because they are men with big heart. For all I know, that thread (that offended you that much) could be started by a NASM guy.

I told you many times that I am not a FASM-only dude. I use NASM at times when I have too much spare time, that is when speed doesn't matter.
Post 27 Jun 2015, 19:25
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
PeExecutable



Joined: 26 Jun 2015
Posts: 181
PeExecutable
fasmnewbie wrote:
PeExecutable wrote:
fasmnewbie wrote:
PeExecutable wrote:

A good principle is: 1. If something is frequently needed, standardize it and put it in code instead of having people do it in macros.


Just because of your inability to use cmp/jxx construct properly, now you want the macro to compensate for your lack of incompetency via macro? You must be one of the worse assembly programmer in the world I've ever known.

A piece of advise I qoute from Hutch (modified): "FASM is not for the faint of heart. If you found it to be too much, take server-side scripting".


I think that you got a very wrong view about my opinions, being eccentric is not bad, but being productive isn't worse than being eccentric.

And I guarantee you that hutch said that because he is irritated with some statements out there, he doesn't literally mean it. Hutch is a man of many tools.

This apparently is a religion to you, and it's not healthy to discuss something if it is a religion to you. You have your assembler, I have an assembler, we're both fine. Put your time in using it instead of putting down people's opinions.


Hutch is a member of FASM board. So is Frank Kotler. But they don't get offended by threads like this because they are men with big heart. For all I know, that thread (that offended you that much) could be started by a NASM guy.

I told you many times that I am not a FASM-only dude. I use NASM at times when I have too much spare time, that is when speed doesn't matter.


You were the one who mentioned offended, I provided constructive criticism about fasm to give inspiration to the author, some people, like you among a few others, will take offense from it. I don't care much about that. Some people view things as a religion, and I can't waste time bothering with that. You've been offended by something which isn't an offense at all, it's just constructive criticism.
Post 27 Jun 2015, 19:27
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fasmnewbie



Joined: 01 Mar 2011
Posts: 553
fasmnewbie
PeExecutable wrote:
fasmnewbie wrote:
PeExecutable wrote:
How many minutes of compile time is too much? Be realistic here. Tell the forum how long is too long. I want you to give a time which is suitable, in seconds or in minutes.


Why you sound so surprised? This is assembly programming we are talking about where things are measured in micro, nano and milliseconds. Even Java don't compile that long. I bet you must come from a NASM-bloatedness culture where 1 minute compile time is considered a glory.

Have you donated to FASM yet?


I guarantee you that my "bloated" code runs faster than yours, so be a little bit more humble. Whatever I have made in NASM runs faster than your code. And I'm ready to compete speed-wise anytime you want. In nanoseconds of course. Just put it out there and I'll beat it.


I am not being cocky. I am stating the facts without any prejudice.

And no, it is C that makes your code runs faster. You can't even use cmp/jxx properly. So why don't you just let C come to your rescue and make it fast for you so that you'll look like a master Assembly Programmer everytime you look yourself in the mirror.
Post 27 Jun 2015, 19:28
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
PeExecutable



Joined: 26 Jun 2015
Posts: 181
PeExecutable
fasmnewbie wrote:
PeExecutable wrote:
fasmnewbie wrote:
PeExecutable wrote:
How many minutes of compile time is too much? Be realistic here. Tell the forum how long is too long. I want you to give a time which is suitable, in seconds or in minutes.


Why you sound so surprised? This is assembly programming we are talking about where things are measured in micro, nano and milliseconds. Even Java don't compile that long. I bet you must come from a NASM-bloatedness culture where 1 minute compile time is considered a glory.

Have you donated to FASM yet?


I guarantee you that my "bloated" code runs faster than yours, so be a little bit more humble. Whatever I have made in NASM runs faster than your code. And I'm ready to compete speed-wise anytime you want. In nanoseconds of course. Just put it out there and I'll beat it.


I am not being cocky. I am stating the facts without any prejudice.

And no, it is C that makes your code runs faster. You can't even use cmp/jxx properly. So why don't you just let C come to your rescue and make it fast for you so that you'll look like a master Assembly Programmer everytime you look yourself in the mirror.


I've been using cmp/jxx for all my life in nasm and the reason I'm coming back to fasm's extended features with if/then, is because i'm tired of using cmp/jxx in code that isn't dependent on speed. So I have no idea where you build your assumptions from. Please take a hike.
Post 27 Jun 2015, 19:31
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fasmnewbie



Joined: 01 Mar 2011
Posts: 553
fasmnewbie
PeExecutable wrote:
You were the one who mentioned offended, I provided constructive criticism about fasm to give inspiration to the author, some people, like you among a few others, will take offense from it. I don't care much about that. Some people view things as a religion, and I can't waste time bothering with that. You've been offended by something which isn't an offense at all, it's just constructive criticism.


You are not critisizing. You are just one very angry NASM guy and worse calling yourself a master when the truth is, you need an IF macro to compensate your lack of incompetency in using basic cmp/jxx construct.
Post 27 Jun 2015, 19:34
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
PeExecutable



Joined: 26 Jun 2015
Posts: 181
PeExecutable
As I told you already, the reason I'm coming for fasm's extended features is because I'm tired of using cmp/jxx. If you have problems deducing the logic from this I would consider helping you construct that logic.

Mastering cmp/jxx -> Yes
Tired of cmp/jxx where it's not productive -> Yes
Using fasm's extended features more productive -> Yes
Does this mean I will stop using cmp/jxx -> No
Does any of these logic constructs indicate I can't master cmp/jxx -> No

I don't know where you're coming from but I don't want to continue talking with you fasmnewbie. My statements become like a factory in correcting you rather than where I really want to spend my time, I want to spend it inspiring people, not correcting them. Please respect that.
Post 27 Jun 2015, 19:37
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fasmnewbie



Joined: 01 Mar 2011
Posts: 553
fasmnewbie
PeExecutable wrote:
I've been using cmp/jxx for all my life in nasm and the reason I'm coming back to fasm's extended features with if/then, is because i'm tired of using cmp/jxx in code that isn't dependent on speed. So I have no idea where you build your assumptions from. Please take a hike.


1. cmp/jxx has nothing to do with speed in comparison to IF
2. You are not tired, you are simply one incompetent master who sees cmp/jxx as a burden and got mad because FASM doesn't include it as one of the standard feature in the compiler.

Have you donated to FASM yet?
Post 27 Jun 2015, 19:42
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
PeExecutable



Joined: 26 Jun 2015
Posts: 181
PeExecutable
Thats just what I said, "isn't dependent on speed" and you're repating after me. Some code isn't dependent on speed, and in such cases you can omit the use of manually constructing cmp/jxx. In some rare cases you can achieve better performance by tweaking the cmp/jxx constructs.

Now my criticism about fasm has got absolutely nothing to do with hatred of fasm, it has got everything to do with optimism. I WANT fasm to become better, not worse.

I think that some people out there have very dysfunctional opinions and have a negative association with constructive criticism, a polluted view on criticism. Criticism is not bad by default.

Criticism is good. It leads to new thought, it leads to change, it leads to improvement. And believe me, the least thing that the author of fasm wants, is people who don't come back and tell him their opinions.

If you try to shut down criticism, it leads to a worse situation.


Last edited by PeExecutable on 27 Jun 2015, 19:57; edited 2 times in total
Post 27 Jun 2015, 19:46
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fasmnewbie



Joined: 01 Mar 2011
Posts: 553
fasmnewbie
PeExecutable wrote:
Thats just what I said, "isn't dependent on speed" and you're repating after me. Some code isn't dependent on speed, and in such cases you can omit the use of manually constructing cmp/jxx. In some rare cases you can achieve better performance by tweaking the cmp/jxx constructs.


On the contrary, FASM's IF can do better job than NASM's IF in terms of speed. No need for tweaking and stuff. I use IF a lot too and it runs a lot faster than NASM's IF.
What say you, master?
Post 27 Jun 2015, 19:55
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
PeExecutable



Joined: 26 Jun 2015
Posts: 181
PeExecutable
Nasm doesn't have IF, it does have conditional .if testing in the assembly phase, but it doesn't have any if/then constructs which act on the contents of memory or registers, you must be thinking about nasmx, which has nothing to do with nasm. In case you haven't noticed already, NASM is a 100% pure natural clean assembly, it has absolutely no noise or pollution in it, its a hundred percent pure. If any assemblers out there is stripped to the bone, it would be NASM. It's stripped to the bone. I have been coding pure assembly (which is much, MUCH purer than any other assemblers out there) and you complain to me that I am using C intrinsics? If there is nothing that NASM lacks, its any intrinsics at all. It's pure. There isn't even a well working structural directive, you have to manually construct your structures. Everything is manual in NASM.


Last edited by PeExecutable on 27 Jun 2015, 20:04; edited 4 times in total
Post 27 Jun 2015, 19:59
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fasmnewbie



Joined: 01 Mar 2011
Posts: 553
fasmnewbie
PeExecutable wrote:
Now my criticism about fasm has got absolutely nothing to do with hatred of fasm, it has got everything to do with optimism. I WANT fasm to become better, not worse.


How come you launch design critisicm against Tomasz whey you yourselves haven't even mastered FASM's pdf documentation and had to call in MASTER revolution to point you where the FASM.pdf is located?

Nope. Its not about criticism. It simply because you are extremely mad about the other thread bashing NASM. LOL
Post 27 Jun 2015, 20:00
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
fasmnewbie



Joined: 01 Mar 2011
Posts: 553
fasmnewbie
PeExecutable wrote:
Nasm doesn't have IF, it does have conditional .if testing in the assembly phase, but it doesn't have any if/then constructs which act on the contents of memory or registers, you must be thinking about nasmx, which has nothing to do with nasm. In case you haven't noticed already, NASM is a 100% pure natural clean assembly, it has absolutely no noise or pollution in it, its a hundred percent pure. If any assemblers out there is stripped to the bone, it would be NASM. It's stripped to the bone.


That's why I abandoned NASM. It doesn't have that particular IF feature in the macro. Thats a shame I must say. Very weak macro system. Hmmm..
Post 27 Jun 2015, 20:04
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.