flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Feedback > Moderators needed: Mr. HELL ???

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Following person should become moderator
Mr. HELL, of course
17%
 17%  [ 3 ]
Madis731
17%
 17%  [ 3 ]
Xorpd!
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
bitRAKE
17%
 17%  [ 3 ]
Other, please post
17%
 17%  [ 3 ]
NO need for moderators
29%
 29%  [ 5 ]
Total Votes : 17

Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
Was C++ any good in 1998? Would you still use such a compiler from that era, f0dder? I doubt it (although you have picky tastes). Anyways, the point being is that if people call it great today only until a new version is out, then it isn't really great, is it?

P.S. I don't hate C++, but it's like a foreign language (seriously!) trying to understand what the hell they're talking about. Too many comp.sci. nerds trying to stuff every feature into a simple program that probably isn't right for C++ anyways. (No language is ideal for everything ... unless you're really smart like Tomasz or Octavio, heh.)
Post 24 Mar 2008, 20:51
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
rugxulo wrote:
Was C++ any good in 1998?
Yeah, the language was decent enough... a lot of people were writing crap code, though Smile - especially publicly available code from that era has so many problems (compiler-specific hacks, ugly/non-existant naming scheemes, over-complicated and crappy class hierarchies, et cetera).

rugxulo wrote:
Would you still use such a compiler from that era, f0dder?
Since there's much better compilers out now, I wouldn't. I did do C++ back in 1998, though, using the compilers from back then.

rugxulo wrote:
Anyways, the point being is that if people call it great today only until a new version is out, then it isn't really great, is it?
There's a difference between (not) calling something great and calling it crap. C++ compilers of yesterday have crappy code generation and language conformance compared to today's compilers, but looking at context I wouldn't call them crap (I would say "why do you use such a crappy old version when there's better + free available today?" if somebody insisted on using Visual C++ 6.0 today, though, but that's again looking at context). And while available compilers do have (a lot) to say wrt. the practical usability of a language, I think it's silly saying that a language sucks based on an implementation of a language.

rugxulo wrote:
P.S. I don't hate C++, but it's like a foreign language (seriously!) trying to understand what the hell they're talking about.
And that's a much better attitude than "C++ sucks [because I don't understand it]". I wouldn't use Pascal today, but I don't think it sucks. LISP looks like parenthesis soup to me, but I wouldn't say it sucks. Haskel and Erlang might be mostly-theoretical-compsci-nerdy languages that I don't see a large personal need for, but I don't say they suck (and it would be utterly lame to do so when I haven't really bothered looking at them).

rugxulo wrote:
Too many comp.sci. nerds trying to stuff every feature into a simple program that probably isn't right for C++ anyways.
Stuff like that can be pretty lame, when it's done only for showoff. Some people think they have to throw the kitchen sink at every little problem... other people are experimenting with the language for the sake of the experiment, which is just fine, though.

rugxulo wrote:
(No language is ideal for everything ... unless you're really smart like Tomasz or Octavio, heh.)
Indeed - use whatever fits, makes sense, reduces development time, optimizes performance, etc... most things have a place.

I've only seen one language that I'd say really sucks, which is PowerBASIC... and that's because of it's various limitations, coupled with the high arrogance of the developers and it's userbase. Yeah, there's very arrogant C++ programmers as well Smile, but at least the language performs... both feature-wise (functional, object-oriented and even sorta-functional (through template meteprogramming) coding are all supported, there's lots of flexibility) as well as performance-wise (today's compilers produce pretty decent code, and there's decent standard library implementations as well).

I'm not claiming C++ is the end-all-be-all language though, because it isn't. While it's pretty flexbile and well suited for a wide range of tasks (yes, I'm biased, but I can't think of a single other language that's as applicable), you can often do better for specific tasks. Sometimes you need to drop to assembly, sometimes it makes more sense using Python, or domain languages (I would consider regular expressions a domain language, btw Smile).
Post 25 Mar 2008, 00:35
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
f0dder wrote:
rugxulo wrote:
Was C++ any good in 1998?
Yeah, the language was decent enough... a lot of people were writing crap code, though Smile - especially publicly available code from that era has so many problems (compiler-specific hacks, ugly/non-existant naming scheemes, over-complicated and crappy class hierarchies, et cetera).


Well, that could apply to any language. I've seen some pretty bad C code (though I admit to not really grok all of that either).

Quote:

rugxulo wrote:
Would you still use such a compiler from that era, f0dder?
Since there's much better compilers out now, I wouldn't. I did do C++ back in 1998, though, using the compilers from back then.


Obviously, I mean, why use old just to be using old? But I meant "Is it still considered decent enough?"

Quote:

rugxulo wrote:
Anyways, the point being is that if people call it great today only until a new version is out, then it isn't really great, is it?
There's a difference between (not) calling something great and calling it crap. C++ compilers of yesterday have crappy code generation and language conformance compared to today's compilers,


In general or just due to lacking SIMD stuff? I know there are some you've said are subpar which I've never used (e.g. Borland 5.5).

Quote:

but looking at context I wouldn't call them crap (I would say "why do you use such a crappy old version when there's better + free available today?" if somebody insisted on using Visual C++ 6.0 today, though, but that's again looking at context). And while available compilers do have (a lot) to say wrt. the practical usability of a language, I think it's silly saying that a language sucks based on an implementation of a language.


The latest alpha of 7-Zip uses mostly MSVC 6.0 for Win9x compatibility and now also with a bit of MSVC 8.0 for speed, and it definitely shows (see here). And MSVC 6.0 is more commonly used (although much worse compatibility or so I heard).

Quote:

rugxulo wrote:
P.S. I don't hate C++, but it's like a foreign language (seriously!) trying to understand what the hell they're talking about.
And that's a much better attitude than "C++ sucks [because I don't understand it]". I wouldn't use Pascal today, but I don't think it sucks.


Some people still hate Pascal. But others love Delphi / FreePascal. I dunno, it seems to be not complete crap. (Same with FreeBASIC, heh. Must be a "free" thing.) Wink

Quote:

LISP looks like parenthesis soup to me, but I wouldn't say it sucks. Haskel and Erlang might be mostly-theoretical-compsci-nerdy languages that I don't see a large personal need for, but I don't say they suck (and it would be utterly lame to do so when I haven't really bothered looking at them).


There's a lot of languages out there!!! (And Haskell is used for one Perl 6 runtime, last I heard. I forget what other big project used Haskell. Erlang? Not much, but the thing I recall being interesting was that it outputted C.)

Quote:

rugxulo wrote:
Too many comp.sci. nerds trying to stuff every feature into a simple program that probably isn't right for C++ anyways.
Stuff like that can be pretty lame, when it's done only for showoff. Some people think they have to throw the kitchen sink at every little problem... other people are experimenting with the language for the sake of the experiment, which is just fine, though.


You have to learn by using, yes, but sometimes it's like overkill.

Quote:

rugxulo wrote:
(No language is ideal for everything ... unless you're really smart like Tomasz or Octavio, heh.)
Indeed - use whatever fits, makes sense, reduces development time, optimizes performance, etc... most things have a place.


It's a challenge to merge two (or more) languages into one program, though. I think that alone makes people stick to only one sometimes.

Quote:

I've only seen one language that I'd say really sucks, which is PowerBASIC... and that's because of it's various limitations, coupled with the high arrogance of the developers and it's userbase.


Has that even been updated in the past few years? Isn't it (reportedly) really slow and 16-bit? (Or else barely 386?)

Quote:

Yeah, there's very arrogant C++ programmers as well Smile, but at least the language performs... both feature-wise (functional, object-oriented and even sorta-functional (through template meteprogramming) coding are all supported, there's lots of flexibility) as well as performance-wise (today's compilers produce pretty decent code, and there's decent standard library implementations as well).


It's just that some people assume G++, which makes it hard to use something like OpenWatcom (whose C++ isn't quite as modern). I just don't see the advantage to breaking compatibility in the name of coding convenience, that's all. The program should run on as many cpus as possible. I'm not saying a billion hacks are good, but a few won't kill ya.

Quote:

I'm not claiming C++ is the end-all-be-all language though, because it isn't.


I know they wanted it to be more compatible with C, and C99 didn't quite do that. But at least it ain't too bad. It's more or less compatible (though not as much as Objective C).

Quote:

While it's pretty flexbile and well suited for a wide range of tasks (yes, I'm biased, but I can't think of a single other language that's as applicable), you can often do better for specific tasks. Sometimes you need to drop to assembly, sometimes it makes more sense using Python, or domain languages (I would consider regular expressions a domain language, btw Smile).


sed is Turing complete, and one guy basically proved it. And some other guys wrote some things like dc (calculator), sokoban, and an unlambda interpreter. And yes, I remember reading on slashdot, "This is a bad example of not 'using the right tool for the job' " (even though it is pretty cool, heh).
Post 25 Mar 2008, 06:31
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
rugxulo wrote:
Well, that could apply to any language. I've seen some pretty bad C code (though I admit to not really grok all of that either).
Oh yes, there's some very bad C code flowing around as well, and very bad assembly code too, and probably for just about any other language as well. Doesn't mean we should judge an entire language by that Smile. There's also pretty decent examples around, for instance the bits of the BSD source code I've been glancing at were pretty nice.

rugxulo wrote:
Obviously, I mean, why use old just to be using old? But I meant "Is it still considered decent enough?"
Some people insist on sticking with Visual Studio 6. It's understandable if running on old hardware, because the .net IDEs are pretty slow pigs, and the IDE was changed around a lot (some for the better, some for the worse...). I wouldn't recommend VS6 for modern C++ code though, it doesn't have very good C++ conformance, it has some bugs, and even GCC has better code generation Smile

rugxulo wrote:
In general or just due to lacking SIMD stuff? I know there are some you've said are subpar which I've never used (e.g. Borland 5.5).
I haven't been using SIMD intrinsics very much, but it was definitely disappointing in older compilers. Things like spilling registers to local vars when not needed, reloading registers, and generally not being very clever. That was in the VS6 era, though... but it caused me to stick with assembly where I needed optimized routines. Situation might be better today, and the idea behind intrinsics is pretty nice.

rugxulo wrote:
The latest alpha of 7-Zip uses mostly MSVC 6.0 for Win9x compatibility and now also with a bit of MSVC 8.0 for speed, and it definitely shows (see here). And MSVC 6.0 is more commonly used (although much worse compatibility or so I heard).
Hmmm, Win9x compatibility? I've tested vs2005 builds of fSekrit on win9x, that worked just fine. Haven't tested vs2008 builds on win9x yet, but I wonder what "compatibility problems" the 7-zip guys have run into?

rugxulo wrote:
Some people still hate Pascal. But others love Delphi / FreePascal. I dunno, it seems to be not complete crap. (Same with FreeBASIC, heh. Must be a "free" thing.) Wink
I started my coding with Turbo Pascal 6.0, quickly mixed with 16bit assembly (TP6 had pretty naïve optimization, and CPUs were slow back then, so it was necessary), then 32bit assembly, then C/C++ and "onto the world". I mainly moved to C/C++ because I could get 32bit code that way, but never really looked back to pascal - while it's a decent enough language, C++ offers more flexibility, better compilers & tools & libraries, and while I like type-checking I certainly don't miss all the CHAR()/ORD() stuff that was necessary in pascal Smile

rugxulo wrote:
It's a challenge to merge two (or more) languages into one program, though. I think that alone makes people stick to only one sometimes.
Yeah, it can be pretty nasty... fortunately a lot of languages have C bindings/glue, so it's generally possible. But you might end up having to use multiple processes and inter-process communication instead of directly linking, and there can be nasty issues like object marshalling as well.

rugxulo wrote:
f0dder wrote:
I've only seen one language that I'd say really sucks, which is PowerBASIC... and that's because of it's various limitations, coupled with the high arrogance of the developers and it's userbase.
Has that even been updated in the past few years? Isn't it (reportedly) really slow and 16-bit? (Or else barely 386?)
Dunno how updated is is, I had a chance to play with PB8 or something a few years back. It had crappy code generation, didn't support linking static libraries / object files, had a lacking and inflexible standard library, did silly things like intermixing code and data, et cetera. Basically, if you don't feel like writing a lot of inline assembly, you won't get too far with PB... and then I'd have to say, why use PB at all?

rugxulo wrote:
It's just that some people assume G++, which makes it hard to use something like OpenWatcom (whose C++ isn't quite as modern). I just don't see the advantage to breaking compatibility in the name of coding convenience, that's all. The program should run on as many cpus as possible. I'm not saying a billion hacks are good, but a few won't kill ya.
Depends on what you're targetting, imho. GCC is free and has decent C++ compliance, and is available on a boatload of platforms... therefore, using modern C++ features is OK to me. VC++ also has very good compliance and code generation today. So unless you're targetting very limited embedded platforms, I don't see much reason in not using language features for coding convenience - after all, convenience is one of the big reasons HLLs were invented Smile. Note that I'm not saying you shouldn't care about performance and code bloat (as long as you don't obsess over it), just that there's not much reason to stick with K&R C and keeping 16-bit processors in mind.

rugxulo wrote:
sed is Turing complete, and one guy basically proved it. And some other guys wrote some things like dc (calculator), sokoban, and an unlambda interpreter. And yes, I remember reading on slashdot, "This is a bad example of not 'using the right tool for the job' " (even though it is pretty cool, heh).
It's genuinely fun when people do crazy stuff like that, but it's not very useful Smile
Post 25 Mar 2008, 14:33
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
MichaelH



Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 402
MichaelH
f0dder in another thread wrote:

If you're taking a C++ class, the idea is to learn C++. If you want to do asm programming, take an asm class.


Pretty arrogant comment considering the fact that you're at an assembler forum and all you ever seem to do is rant on about c\c++ Sad
Post 25 Mar 2008, 21:28
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4240
Location: 2018
edfed
asm will conquier the world.

you are a soldier of asm, your mission is to convince the others to code in asm.

like a missionary.

just explain, where is the benefit in C/c++ coding, if all platform share the same machine language?
now, the X86 comes to be the best hardware implementation for coding. it's very close to the HLL, but as it is only for X86, it cannot cover all the needs of programmers. but maybe, one day, all machines will be at least x86 32 RM compatible, this is the best thing to do for this century.
all x86.
Post 25 Mar 2008, 22:12
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
MichaelH



Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 402
MichaelH
edfed wrote:

you are a soldier of asm, your mission is to convince the others to code in asm.


I'm not here to convince anyone to do anything but once, in the early days of the internet, it was considered rude to visit forums and pollute it with subjects other than the subject the forum was intended for. Am I mistaken in my belief that this is not a forum for c\c++ evangelists like f0dder?

With all the nonsense c\c++ crap all over this forum now, is this forum an assembler forum or a c\c++ forum?????? This question is relevant to the thread about admins. Perhaps admins need to be more aggressive towards deleting posts about c\c++.
Post 25 Mar 2008, 23:03
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4240
Location: 2018
edfed
it remember me a girl of new york, she was there for holiday, we drunk about 3 bootles of wine , didn't fuck Sad, but spoke a lot about... OPEN MIND.

OPEN your MIND, then, C,C++ are not devil, just little things we don't care about, but if people think it is convenient to speak about C,C++ on this forum, why not...

but yes, it is an ASM forum, then, please, gentlemens, can you speak more about asm, code a little, post some code, make it better, etc...

a language without coder is nothing. then, if nobody code in asm, what will be the reason to have a forum on asm???

sara, i think about you... Crying or Very sad
Post 25 Mar 2008, 23:21
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
MichaelH



Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 402
MichaelH
edfed wrote:

but if people think it is convenient to speak about C,C++ on this forum, why not...


..... sure why not, why not google and have ten pages of links to every other subject than the subject you are searching for ..... why not have doctors learn medicine from books about plumbing ...... why not, because this is the flat assembler forum, a forum about and for those who are interested in, the assembler language!!!!!
Post 25 Mar 2008, 23:58
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
I think this was blown out of proportion a little bit. I mean, there's barely five posts or so by f0dder about C++, and I (at least) was genuinely conversing with him about it. But anyways, it's moot, the topic's finished. Let's not go overboard with "strictly asm only" here to the point where we have to delete every other thread.
Post 26 Mar 2008, 22:32
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
And note that I dragged it in as a piece of helpful advice - if you're taking a class on C++ and basically doing inline assembly, your teacher has every right to give you an F-. Just like in the real world, if you don't stick to a contract, your client/employer has the right to take you off a project.

I guess MichaelH has a personal problem with me, *shrug*.
Post 26 Mar 2008, 23:48
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
MichaelH



Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 402
MichaelH
I haven't got a personal anything with you f0dder, I don't even know who you are apart from some evangelistic c\c++ ranter who never stops posting off topic posts in a forum about assembler.
Post 27 Mar 2008, 01:23
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
C++ evangelist? Hardly. Pragmatic realist? Yes. Posting off-topic? Yeah, like everybody else. Tongue in cheek and somewhat provocative? hell yes.
Post 27 Mar 2008, 01:33
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4240
Location: 2018
edfed
if all topic had only in topic post, it will be sooo poor.
like if it was bureacraty, berk no one want it.
if you want a pure text in topic, take a tutorial or a techinical document, it speak only about one thing. Very Happy
Post 27 Mar 2008, 01:41
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
MichaelH



Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 402
MichaelH
f0dder wrote:

C++ evangelist? Hardly. Pragmatic realist?


I think you'd have more fun debating that point with a .net c# or maybe even vb evangelist Wink

Anyway, now that we've once again gone down the exciting path that is c\c++ (thanks again f0dder for your brilliant informative tid bits on the fascinating world of c\c++), can we get back to the topic ..... what is being done about the future of the fasm forums admins..... anything?
Post 27 Mar 2008, 01:47
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
MichaelH wrote:
Pretty arrogant comment considering the fact that you're at an assembler forum and all you ever seem to do is rant on about c\c++ Sad


The simple truth which you don't like (notice the "don't like", liking doesn't have to do anything with reality) is that assembler is NOT the best solution for everything. Sorry, i believe you would be glad if it was, but it isn't. Nothing is.

Best advice i can give to any asm-zealot (like i was) is to GET REAL PROJECT EXPERIENCE.

Assembly is still wonderfull language, i believe every C coder should learn it, and most C++ coders should learn it. Otherwise they utilize stuff they don't understand. But assembly alone is ignorance (and yes, i was ignorant too in past) or lack of knowledge to judge properly.
Post 27 Mar 2008, 22:50
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
sorry for last offtopic, had to react.

As for FASM board admin: I believe that in current situtation it would be ideal to nominate revolution for moderator (not "admin" MichaelH, btw)
Post 27 Mar 2008, 22:53
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4240
Location: 2018
edfed
revolution as mod +1

and i start to see the limitations of pure asm...
it's true, asm is powerfull. the layer where to act in case of poor performances or simple algorythm to devellop (no need of C to code a simple add eax,1). but the C and C++ have their word to say, just because they can manipulate asm transparentlly, and can manage more abstractions levels than pure asm.
just to ouput a value, in asm, it's a misery, and in C/C++, it's as simple as writing printf or cout.

for macro addicts: a good thing can be to developp a macro file to write C/C++ with fasm...
Post 27 Mar 2008, 23:07
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17338
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
I think this person should be a mod, just because the handle is so cool.

Hehe, I wish my handle was as good as that.

If I was to be a mod then the first thing I'll do is delete all the posts by that rapscallion revolution. He/she never even has the decency to give a proper location and also is very naughty by not properly saying what gender he/she is. I wouldn't trust anyone like that.

Twisted Evil
Post 27 Mar 2008, 23:55
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4240
Location: 2018
edfed
the revolution don't have any gender, and don't have a fixed location, then, it's natural we don't know any of both... don't be so angry angainst this user.
Post 28 Mar 2008, 00:06
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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  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. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.