TOM, Have you even used FASM? The way you talk I'd be suprised if you've ever coded in assembly language of any kind!

Sorry if that sounds a bit harsh but just because businesses want to produce bloated crap which needs more GHz and GiB than the product they released last week just because it's quicker to do and therefore more profitable doesn't mean that's the right way to do things.

If code requires some skill to decipher the meaning of and requires a fraction of the RAM etc of the .NET solution then that serves 2 purposes: 1) It means we don't end up with monkeys coding software which is used in places such as Nuclear Reactor's (potentially lethal I think you'll agree if something goes wrong) and 2) Means hardware is useful for longer (thereby reducing the need to upgrade every X monthes and slowing the destruction of the planet we call home.).

Also, your capitalistic view means that folks such as the russian coders for MenuetOS or those from countries where a 386SX-25MHz is still the cutting edge will be excluded from this sort of thing because they can't afford the latest P4 dual core processor.

Coding is an art! Shame some people have forgetten this.

Ah, thank you for this excellent rejoinder. I am very happy to read your excellent argument against my position. First, let me say, that I still have in operation, my old 486's, and even one 386. So, no, I do not think one needs to write code that will only operate on p4's. I have long argued, on FASM forum, and elsewhere, that 64bit cpu's are not really yet that important, so I think to some extent you may have misunderstood my direction, and perhaps that is a reflection of my relatively mediocre communication skills.
Secondly, no, I do not use FASM.
Third, yes, I have written asm programs, including a few for the intel cpu.
More to the point:
I do not believe that I am attempting to argue in favor or in opposition to any particular economic system, whether capitalistic, free enterprise, state supported capitalism, fascism, socialism, dictatorship, or whatever. I am attempting to argue in favor of WRITING PROGRAMS, not CODE.
I differentiate between BLOAT, which is caused by incorporating CODE in a routine that must be modified, but no one knows how to modify it, so they just tack on some more junk, and RATIONAL USE OF THE HUGE MEMORY sitting on even the smallest machine sold in the past ten years. What, you think if I travel to Kaliningrad or Volgograd, or Vladivostok, that they will still be using the abacus?? Heck no, Russia represents THE FOREFRONT of excellence in assembly language programming, far superior to most other countries, in my opinion. They have plenty of computers in Russia, and the other republics of the former Soviet Union. And they have access to the same INCREDIBLY CHEAP memory, most of it from Korea, as the rest of the world. MEMORY!!! use it, it is there. it is not BLOAT, to use memory wisely. It is bloat to write "tight"code, which no one else but you understand. A short, 500 line bit of compact CODE, requiring only 1 megabyte of RAM is far more BLOATED than a 5000 line PROGRAM, requiring 100 megabytes of RAM, which is however, thoroughly documented, so that anyone else can come along and modify it. The real bloated program, i.e. the short, concise program, will just be tossed in the waste basket, as irrelevant: "It is easier to start all over, than to try and figure out, what Mr. Jones was doing". I bet I have heard that refrain a hundred times in the past thirty years.
Coding is an art. I agree. I simply have no interest in supporting ART. I want to encourage PROGRAMMING, not art.

Art in the antiquity: is the skill and hability to produce something.


From http://www.xuliocs.com/terminolog.htm

art lat. artem. Talent, hability, capacity, technique. Capacity, hability for do something.


tought I agree about the reading of source code... I think also compact is good , they boot are art... if there is a guy that can do art, not only in compact, but in readability/understandable, then that is nice.

You were not trying to argue in favor or opposition of any particular socio-economic system however what you said confirmed your position in the spectrum of things.

BLOAT = Unnecessary code or necessary code to support unnecessary functionality. You are the only person I've ever heard consider BLOAT to be to do with readability of code. I accept that doesn't automatically make me correct but it does mean you are in a minority and there must be a reason for that.

I agree the russians seem like fantastic ASM coders generally at or above the skill level of the Scandanavian sceners. I am aware that large parts of Russia are now hugely influenced by capitalistic investment/exploitation which undoubtedly means an increase in the volume of currency circulating and all the material things which come with it but not ALL off russia is like that yet. My comment about older hardware mainly related as the wording suggested to other smaller, poorer nations.

Strange that you are not interested in art... Wasn't a piece of your art auctioned recently??? (Please have a sense of humour)

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CABF6.htm

The question posed by this thread, the proper form and structure of a contest, using assembly language, has led to a related question: Is programming artistic?
I appreciate that many participants of this forum would take offense at my suggestion that their activities ought to be defined NOT as ART, but rather as mundane, unspectacular, non-glamorous, bookkeeping. Yes, we are merely accountants, in my view, not musicians composing Appassionata, not novelists creating Anna Karenina, and certainly not Brancusi, Modigliani, or Michaelangelo. Just tax collectors, like Blaise Pascal, working with a purpose as non-artistic, uncreative, and practical as possible. When you glance at a genuine artistic accomplishment, whether Greek, Roman, Chinese, Persian, Mayan, or any other, the most striking aspect of it, is universally acclaimed beauty, ABSENT a need for it. The Taj Mahal was absolutely unnecessary. It is perhaps the most beautiful creation of humans thus far, but, it served no purpose, save ostentation. Beauty does not demand functionality.
Computer programming, at least since Turing, on the other hand, DOES DEMAND purposeful direction. It not only need not be attractive in appearance, it can be, and generally is, QUITE UGLY, or at least UNREMARKABLE. While crowds a block long will flock to a museum in Tokyo, Berlin, or Cairo to regard with admiration a piece of rock, fashioned with some kind of tool, whether by humans or one of the other anthropoid apes, to represent something, or someone, very few people are willing to even glance at, let alone study, a computer program.
The competition will take place, and perhaps it will be considered a success, regardless of one person's opinion about the nature of the competition. The competition will challenge our creativity. It will stimulate our interest. It will provoke debate. Perhaps, it will even lead to an artistic epiphany. My hope, more austere and less optimistic, is that this contest will lead to issuance of a simple accounting statement, viewed generally as competent, thorough, and detailed, regardless of any ostensible merit of supposed beauty.

imho, i think, the best piece of code is the piece that make use excellent variable naming system, excellent logic to solve a problem or getting a solution, excellent indentation.

let say if one could build a 1 sector OS, but using an ugly or hard to understand variable naming system, basically, i still regard it as a failure (imho).

ten people is almost certainly easier to manage compare to one hundred people. so as the variable we created. 10 variables is of course easier to manage compare with 100 variables.

but if we were to put different tasks under 10 variables, then i would say 100 variables with specialize tasks are better to manage compare with that 10 variables.

when a program uses excellent logic, this would means, the program would be the smallest, most compact, and the logic are sequencially presented to solved the problem.

while producing the most dynamic function is a challenging task instead a "use once throw" function :p

regards,
sulaiman

A fully-working implementation in order to put and retrieve data from disks. The idea is to try creative alternatives, maybe someone among us is able to present an alternative to folders and subdirectories.

The voters are electing to maintain the 512b limit, I wonder if there is a chance to fit a file system on it

Thats the challenge, to see if you can fit a peace of code in to a limited space and still make it work .
I use the get the program to work right first and then try to make it fit in 512 byte method.
At first you think this is easy as you knock lots of bytes off the program, but the last 100 bytes are the hardiest .

Nobody is going to try to write an entire OS in 512 bytes. It can't be done. You can't write Windows, Linux, or even DOS in 512 bytes. But you can try to write something useful, cool, or fun- something that WORKS- in 512 bytes. If you can do that, whoever writes the fastest, coolest, most useful or most fun, and smallest (If you can write something less than 512 bytes, that's even cooler than exactly 512 bytes). Basically, it's impossible to write an entire OS in 512 bytes or less, but why not do something cool that is actually usable? You can at least try!

BTW, I assume we are not allowed to start coding before August 1, but just to make sure: am I correct? I can't wait to get started

You can start coding any time you like, but you will not be able to post the code for other people to try until at least August 1 .

Great! Now, hmmm, what should I do...