Message board for the users of flat assembler.
> Main > Should FASM Support High-Level Constructs?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
|Fasm Support for High-Level Constructs?|
|Total Votes : 20|
MattBro 24 Dec 2003, 05:29
Well I'm glad to hear that fasm was designed to be a backend for a compiler, because that's exactly what I'm using it for! If the if, then and else are implemented as macros (I haven't bothered to use them yet and I have hundreds of lines of code in my compiler), that's probably good enough for me. More documentation on the macros would be nice, but I know it all takes precious time.
What I'd like to see are a set of 'free' standard libraries written in fasm. Maybe it's already out there. There is of course the win32 api, but I'd like to see efficient fasm implementations of things like memory management routines (e.g. a garbage collector), data structures, string utilities, conversion utilities, numerical libraries etc.
I chose to write version 0 of my compiler in fasm itself. (C would have been faster, but I figured this would be a nice crash course in fasm.) My next version of the compiler will be written in a subset of my new language of course.
"I am the Way and the Truth and the Light, no one comes to the Father except through me" - Jesus
|24 Dec 2003, 05:29||
Vortex 24 Dec 2003, 11:04
i dunno i read somewhere that macros are dangerous
Why they are dangerous?
Code it... That's all...
|24 Dec 2003, 11:04||
wolf 25 Dec 2003, 09:34
I would like to have fasm just the way it is.
my reasons for that are:
I want to understand what's really going on at processor level.
If fasm migrates into a sort of high level language, what for should it have been created?
Some HLA style macros can be very helpful but the longer I use macros or HLA constructions, the more I forget about the code underlying them.
If I want to test an idea quickly, I use GfaBasic32 which also has an inline assembler. But fasm should be kept the way it is.
|25 Dec 2003, 09:34||
silkodyssey 25 Dec 2003, 14:08
What I think a lot of people forget is that having hll features in a language
does not force you to use these features. But I think Privalov wants
to keep the language as simple as possible so that the users won't have
to learn too many directives.So I agree with you that fasm should ke keep the
way it is because it was designed for specific reasons. Anyone who wants
hll features in an assembler can find an assembler that
supports these features.
|25 Dec 2003, 14:08||
Azu 01 May 2009, 04:04
Well as long as it's optional it can't HURT anything (besides waste of time implementing)..
Should FASM support high level constructs like if..else..endif, for...next, while...endwhile, etc.. I would say yes, but let's take a poll.
|01 May 2009, 04:04||
bitshifter 01 May 2009, 04:21
I like fasm just the way it is.
You can use use macro if you want to, but it is not neccessary.
When learning fasm i used basic macros to ease coding.
But soon after i wanted to know what they actually did inside.
Nowadays i only use macros when it is convienant to do so.
What is nice about fasm is the freedom to make your own choices.
One way is not better than the other way, for some people macros
make the code easier to read, for others it makes it harder to read.
While writing a large project recently i had used certain macros to
simply cut down the number of lines in my code.
It did make it easier to read in the long run.
This is only my humble opinion.
PS: Thanks to Tomasz for keeping fasm so open minded.
Coding a 3D game engine with fasm is like trying to eat an elephant,
you just have to keep focused and take it one 'byte' at a time.
|01 May 2009, 04:21||
comrade 01 May 2009, 06:44
Is there a reason we resurrect this very old thread?
|01 May 2009, 06:44||
|Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Copyright © 1999-2023, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on GitHub, YouTube.
Website powered by rwasa.