flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Fasm in the world

Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
M!kro$



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 19
M!kro$
Is though one programs written on Fasm which had wide popularity, whether I want to tell has Fasm really good programs or they are not present????
Post 15 Nov 2004, 11:50
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
JohnFound



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 3500
Location: Bulgaria
JohnFound
Well, exact answer is: "not exactly". Wink

FASM is pretty new product and it was produced to be back-end assembler for HLL languages. Fortunately, it became so powerfull that in the last 1..2 years a lot of programmers began to write bigger and bigger applications using FASM.

At first place you can see the first OS writen entirely in assembler: MenuetOS. There are of course a lot of FASM applications for MenuetOS, including web browser (not finished), editors, games, etc.

At second, there is a interesting project FAIM (flat assembler instant messenger). It is not finished and not stable yet, but I hope it will become very popular, because of its small size and potentially great features.

There are of course a lot of projects regarding all kind of developement tools - from command line tools, to the project "Fresh", that is intended to become the most powerfull assember IDE - the goal is the same, making creation of big and quality applications using FASM. Note, that existing of the powerfull RAD IDE is the first, very important condition for the developers to be able to create more and more complex applications.

Of course I am sure I missed a lot of programs, small and middle size, that FASM users write all the time. There are definately interesting projects, even if they are still not worldwide known.

So, the future is IMHO, very promising for FASM.

Regards
Post 15 Nov 2004, 12:13
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ICQ Number Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar
Assembly Artist


Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7718
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
I would add the CPCE to this list - a nice and quite complete project.
Post 15 Nov 2004, 13:23
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
roticv



Joined: 19 Jun 2003
Posts: 374
Location: Singapore
roticv
Hmm just take it that I am abit busy. Haven't really got the time to fix FAIM. Busy training for competitive programming
Post 15 Nov 2004, 18:34
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger Reply with quote
M!kro$



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 19
M!kro$
I up to FASM wrote on Delphi, Certainly visual programs to write on the Assembler much more difficultly and longly. But besides a size which does not give rest programer since a birth:) it turns out a minimum in 10 times more. But time spent on writing also in 10 times is less:) With existing sizes of hard disks I think a difference between 300 kb and 5 kb is imperceptible. Since a hard disk on 240 gb now not luxury and a resource of existence. Also in low-level languages is also naked API which possibility to use those or other built - in procedures turns out very compact, but, it is huge plus. The same functions by operation with strings, this is very simple int: = StrLen (str) and all:) And on the assembler it is the whole big procedure. Therefore I think enough of procedures, macroes in separate libraries will not appear yet, quantity users as will not increase. At the same time fast developing visual shell for FASM too deserves special attention. I think if to listen to wishes of users that it is possible to achieve tremendous results, in fact C# too was not born such. FASM as well as LINUX should win the defined circle of people / programer. Since has no financial support. P.S. By the way why to not make check in invoke i.e. for existence of function in the table of import, and its absence to add her there??? It was - very convenient. There is a separate file and imported functions are added there...


Last edited by M!kro$ on 16 Nov 2004, 07:44; edited 1 time in total
Post 16 Nov 2004, 06:19
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
veach1



Joined: 16 Jul 2004
Posts: 165
veach1
Quote:
difference between 300 kb and 5 kb is imperceptible

only people who like ASM can understand this difference
Post 16 Nov 2004, 07:31
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vbVeryBeginner



Joined: 15 Aug 2004
Posts: 884
Location: \\world\asia\malaysia
vbVeryBeginner
60 times of 5 kb equal to 300kb
you mean that is a small difference?

well, i don't really like my hard disk to be filled with lot of junk codes :p (but microsoft filled a lot already), you know what i mean right :p

windows 95 occupied about less than 100MB
windows 98 > 100 < 300 MB
windows 2000 > get about 1 GB?
windows XP > more than 1GB
windows 2003 > more than 1.5 GB

the above stats is guess only (based on experience) but currently i am using win95, which microsoft had terminated it supports on that product Sad

the best part is, to install win95 over a formatted drive takes about less than 5 minutes on my PC ! with windows xp, it takes around 20 minutes :p

to get string length using api is simple and clean
Code:
mystr   db 'hello world!',0
mystrlen  dd ?

invoke lstrlen,mystr
       mov  [mystrlen],eax
    


only the problem with coding in assembly i guess is about COM or COM+ object, OLE, and those stuff that people usually did using C++ but it is still possible to do it in assembly lang, only it takes more time i guess :[

the fun part is, we understand the every bytes in the output final executable :p
Post 16 Nov 2004, 08:27
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
JohnFound



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 3500
Location: Bulgaria
JohnFound
Well, this topic is for the HEAP forum, so I will move it there.
About the sizes: It is offen used arguments from HLL programmers that the size doesn't matter when you have many GBytes hard disks in modern computers. It is not true at all. There are several arguments that the size does matter:

1. The size of my first hard disk was 4.7Gbytes on interface ATA-33. The novadays computers have 100Gbytes hard disks on interface ATA-133. The size rises about 20times, but the speed only 4 times.
Win95 was 100Mbytes on ATA-33 disk. WinXP is 1Gbytes on ATA-133 - The size ratio is 10 but the speed ratio is only 4.
Of course the total sizes and speeds are not so indicative, but as a whole the size of commersial applications grows faster than the speed of the hardware and approximately with the same speed as the size of the hard disks. As a result, the overall speed of the computers actually slightly decreases if we are talking about applications that uses a lot of disk files.
The same is about processor speed, with only difference, that modern HLL compilers are pretty good in code optimization. The paradox is that reasonable written assembly applications even not using processor optimization manage to be faster than HLL language programs that are optimized for specific CPU. The result is that assembly applications are faster on all processors from 486 to AMD K7, while HLL applications are faster only on one processor, or have to use some tricks like run-time compilers, etc.

2. Very often, the actuall speed of the program is tottaly not important. The parameters of the importance actually is the user subjective feeling of speed. So, if we have the program that make specific task for 1 second and it "thinks" on every button click 1 second and loads itself for 10seconds and another program that make the same task to 5seconds, but reacts on user clicks instantly and loads itself for 1second, the user will have the impression that the second program is much more faster than the first one, regardless that the true is that it makes its main task 5 times slower than the first program.

3. The size is important in the world where more and more communications are through Internet. Of course the internet speeds grows, but not so fast as the size of the applications and on fast internet connections, you pay not the speed, but the trafic.
So, smaller application sizes are important when you want to distribute the software in the internet. The size here is money - for hosting, for trafic, for waiting for download etc.
The only ones that gains from big application sizes are ISPs. They collect profits from the authors and from the users - even for free applications.

Regards.
Post 16 Nov 2004, 09:02
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ICQ Number Reply with quote
M!kro$



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 19
M!kro$
In it topic I only wanted to tell.... That the future behind a visual development environment.... Since fresh fast develops, I think that it is necessary to start to reflect on writing a lot of components, to complicate them, for example as in Delphi, everyone of components has the functions and procedures which considerably simplify writing programs. The unique minus this project is not financed, that is very bad. Unfortunately all market borrow Microsoft and Borland. And any "domestic" hand-made articles such as " Free pascal " or "hla" they do not reach even the middle of path.... Because, or bothers to write simply so or the free time is ended... It is interesting to me nevertheless FASM has the future whether or not. Creators have still a desire to create and create, or all has already cooled down.

P.S. and on the score of a size, I had for a long time a treasured dream to write scroll box Q3 on the assembler:) probably it flied on P100 32mb Ram:)
Post 16 Nov 2004, 09:28
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
crc



Joined: 21 Jun 2003
Posts: 637
Location: Penndel, PA [USA]
crc
Quote:
windows 95 occupied about less than 100MB
windows 98 > 100 < 300 MB
windows 2000 > get about 1 GB?
windows XP > more than 1GB
windows 2003 > more than 1.5 GB


Hmm, from memory (and a few recent installs)

Win95 = ~50MB
Win98 = ~150MB
Win2k = ~500MB
WinXP = ~1GB
Post 16 Nov 2004, 13:03
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
crc



Joined: 21 Jun 2003
Posts: 637
Location: Penndel, PA [USA]
crc
Quote:
With existing sizes of hard disks I think a difference between 300 kb and 5 kb is imperceptible.


Well, a 60x difference is rather perceptible to me. The smaller software is, the more room there is for my data. Consider that the programs I use on a regular basis take less than 10MB total. My text files alone take more than 3GB of space.

I also run WinXP. It takes over a GB of hard drive space, and all I use it for is internet access (I only have a winmodem at the moment) and editing text. If I could afford a real modem, I could use that GB of space for something better... like more CAD drawings Smile
Post 16 Nov 2004, 13:12
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
veach1



Joined: 16 Jul 2004
Posts: 165
veach1
vbVeryBeginner spoke not about installation package but about installed winXX

My admin has win2003 installed. Folder "windows" takes 1,41 GB
Post 16 Nov 2004, 13:16
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
crc



Joined: 21 Jun 2003
Posts: 637
Location: Penndel, PA [USA]
crc
Those are the approximate install sizes on my box. Other than 98, I am pretty sure of the installed sizes for the others, at least on my box.
Post 16 Nov 2004, 13:22
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
pelaillo
Missing in inaction


Joined: 19 Jun 2003
Posts: 878
Location: Colombia
pelaillo
Those sizes are for just-installed boxes, the size of 'windows' folder increases at a quick rate, so both numbers are plausible.

p.d. I have noticed that since I got rid of default windows shell (explorer.exe), the size increasing rate for 'windows' folder reduced dramatically. Wonder why?? Rolling Eyes
Post 16 Nov 2004, 17:45
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger Reply with quote
M!kro$



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 19
M!kro$
Let's solve... You want will create win2004 which to borrow about 21-22 kb? On the assembler.... Or you want to create new Explorer.exe which borrowed 3 kb? Or you write more for yourselves? Because each advanced language has behind the shoulders a little bit really worth program products.... C*Masm - winXX, Delphi - set of databases..., etc. And future FASM is simply domestic programming language??? Or something the greater??? Question
Post 17 Nov 2004, 06:19
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
JohnFound



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 3500
Location: Bulgaria
JohnFound
M!kro$ wrote:
Because each advanced language has behind the shoulders a little bit really worth program products.... C*Masm - winXX, Delphi - set of databases..., etc.


You are right, that widespread programming languages have a lot of software created on them. But these languages are very mature and they was in use since decades. Also, behind these languages stands big companies with a lot of money. On the other hand, the assembler (not particular compiler, but the whole concept) was total taboo for many years. So, it is not strange, that there are so little worth applications written on it.

Quote:
And future FASM is simply domestic programming language??? Or something the greater??? Question


Definitely not! Actually even now FASM becomes one of the most advanced and popular assemblers. There are very little assemblers that can demonstrate so many full-assembly projects for Windows and generally for GUI OSes, even not finished.
Try to search and you will find that the most assembly written applications are actually simple demos, tutorials and console applications.
Well, MASM have more applications written on it, but MASM is here since many, many years. FASM is only 4 years old.

Regards
Post 17 Nov 2004, 06:47
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ICQ Number Reply with quote
bubach



Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 340
Location: Trollhättan, Sweden
bubach
the winxp folder on my schools computers ~2gb
Post 17 Nov 2004, 08:28
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
WinXP: there is a windows/system32/dllcache folder where all libs from windows/system32 are stored again, and if you delete them from windows/system32 they are copied back from dllcache withoiut any notice or whatever. If you want, you can delete about 300Mb dllcahce, i did it and i don't have absolutely no problems with that.
Post 17 Nov 2004, 11:01
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


< 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.