So edfed, and I are looking for opinions, or help on my interpretor method. It is a simple idea, but edfed tells me the code should be converted to asm, but I don't believe that is possible. I rather prefer interpreting it and giving up speed for now, but he believes my language can be implemented just as simple via asm,m which I think you would disagree whe you see the simple abstraction I am trying to make, away from asm,yet keeping the langauge as simplistically an interpreted string.

What I want to do is simply interpret my higher level language, using what I call asm opcodes, or calls so imagine you want to draw two boxes to screen, simply interpret the drawbox opcode ie 0001 followed by inputs as 8 hex bytes 0000000F until the interpretor reaches a stop opcode ie 0000, each function can respectively increment to account for inputs

this gives me tremendous flexibility to build datastring applications, as two software demos I have here written via datastring, and interpreted presently with c# instead of asm.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiA0nh40gZc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3ilWZJCg74

here is my universal xml spec structure i prefer, using nodes and attributes.

http://www.geocities.com/lynchdavid/dav.xml

Thank you in advance for your considerations of this topic

what davidlynch try to say is :

the datastring is a NEW language.
to program datastring, it's like machine language, but with different opcodes.
so it's like an hexa decimal java, or something like that.
he wants to interpret hexadecimal strings like:
00010000000600000007000000080000000900000004
(drawbox 6,7,8,9,4)
these strings, he wants to write them by hand, in hexadecimal, hit enter, and stop execution with 0000 opcode.

so, what do you think of this idea?
i don't know the words to explain, and hope i'll learn them by you.

Aha, seems that we are coming back to the pre-assembler era? I don't think that writing programs in raw hex codes is comfortable way of coding. However, it may be good for educational purposes.

yes, do you agree if i say he shall learn real asm instead of invent this?

I think, that if someone wants to do something, he shouldn't ask us, but simply do it. Every programming effort could be a good exercise at least (even if seems to be unnecessary).

400th post

Or both of you can do this....

Define a project.

David do it with datastring.

You do it in fasm.

Document everything.

After both of you are done, trade what you have. Don't talk to each others for two weeks, and during these time, study what the other has done.

Meet up two weeks later. Get A to explain B's project to B, and vice versa.

Then ... compare notes. Trade ideas. Share your opinion. Learn from each others.

In this way, both learn. Win-Win.

Or both of you can do this....

Define a project.

David do it with datastring.

You do it in fasm.

Document everything.

After both of you are done, trade what you have. Don't talk to each others for two weeks, and during these time, study what the other has done.

Meet up two weeks later. Get A to explain B's project to B, and vice versa.

Then ... compare notes. Trade ideas. Share your opinion. Learn from each others.

In this way, both learn. Win-Win.

What is the goal of this language? If it is a thin interface between two machines then it seems like a good idea, imho.

bitrake, i realzed whe I was using c#, I had very little control over each object of memory I stored in an array, so by interpreting the turing tape, memory spcae, myself, I have total control of my node trees in memory. also my videos show the tree display interface Ive invented and will make further multidimensional for viusalizing data.

IMHO, C# is where you went astray. Now, bear with me, I program in 5 other languages beside ASM, it just happens to be my favorite for hobby purposes. I view C# much the same way I view any flavor of Java that can be compiled to executable: It's cute, it works, but a true programmer will always have that nagging feeling in the back of their mind as to why it's so bloated, inefficient, and why they can't seem to control the internals. I looked over C# long enough to deem it a MS Java/C++ hybrid.

As far as your language is concerned, it isn't so much an abstraction from Assembly, it's a reversion back to a time before assembly, when you flipped 8 switches and hit a program button for a few hours before having a working program. I believe if you write a small "compiler" for it, where you use the pretty sophisticated string functions of C# to change "drawbox" to it's opcode in the string, you'd have much better functionality. it is, in essence a primitive VM.

i too code 5 other languages, but i mainly stick with C & ASM, for the reasons tonyMac has just said... so much bloated shit that just isnt needed in a language.