Assembler Enhancement Initiative

[jdoe]

Serj,

HLLs makes fast developments because they input an abstraction layer to the final assembly as for HL syntax you could think of into an assembler language. The problems you are talking about are somekind of coding design problems. For me, working on an abstraction layer for assembly language is more like trying to make an HLL.
You haven't show clearly what you have in mind and it is difficult for me to understand what's your point and what you want to achieved and this topics goes on without being clear.

[TNick]

Thanks for not stealing our dword's.  :bg What I was trying to say in my previous reply was that:

Code Select Expand

cmp  Interested_in_what_others_think, TRUE
jne   @F
   mov Have_other_opinions, 1
@@:
cmp  Searching_for_coworkers, TRUE
jne  L1
  mov   NrOfReplies, -1*ReqNrOfCoWorkers
  @@:
  ; maybe this is an infinite loop, so a counter should be added :)
  INVOKE WaitForMultipleObjects,NrOfMASM32ForumMembers,addr HArray,FALSE,1000*60*60*24
  cmp      eax,WAIT_TIMEOUT
  je         @B
  add      NrOfReplies, 1
  jnz       @B
L1:
INVOKE DoTheJob
INVOKE PostAlfaVersion

Regards,
Nick

[Sameer]

Serj mentioned in his first post

I've got big experience and advanced ideas but i started this topic no to discuss them but just to see you are READY

so its not a question of weather you should go ahead with your project or not and if you can come of with something useful, programmers will definitely use it.

[TNick]

jmp L1

[Serj]

Deal :bg

[Howard]

Serj

I'll sure be watching with interest to see what you come up with...

Howard

[Mark Jones]

Well if I can add my two cents... I think many of us have just assumed you were new to MASM32 Serj because you are new to this forum. The forum here is like a small community - everyone knows everyone else, except we don't know you yet. We also cannot read minds, so please try to be more concise about what you are saying. I think it would help me if you could demonstrate a comparison between existing code and your proposition. I know you are only talking hypotheses at the moment, but please give us a physical demonstration of what you are trying to accomplish, because many of us are not understanding you fully. This might be due to many of us being so accustomed to writing code a certain way, that we can't envision what you are talking about.

Also, I agree with some of Tedd's initial observations. The more HLL-like you try and make assembler, the less control (and more abstraction) you seem to have. I've tried a few various object-oriented assemblers over the years and while they may be fine for some people, personally I've always found them too much hassle for the investment. It always seems like you spend twice as long writing all the markup and "support" code than it takes to just write it in assembler. There is something truly magnificent to be said about the simplicity of raw assembler. Therefore I think a large part of helping to overcome the limitations of assembler is simply to learn more about it. (Not that I'm saying anyone needs to learn assembler, only that I've gotten better at it just by learning more about it.)

Anything that makes assembler language longer or more "syntaxial" seems counter-productive to me. I really like the nearly 1:1 ratio of code to binary. If you could make a language that takes that ratio down to 0.75:1, I'm all ears! :wink

jmp L1

:lol