Sorry, but I get tired with code many pages in each small progs. The problems are I don't like make button, menu, ratio... by coding, I like Visual Basic or Visual C# becoz they have the toolbar that I can drag and drop button, menu ... what I like at anywhere.
I tried all IDE ASM here, but they all make me coding in tired. :mad:
I tried all IDE ASM here, but they all make me coding in tired. :mad:
you could work with resource editors
You two look like twins :)
kidcrack,
There are two ways to have windows in your windows applications. You either write the code or use a resource editor to graphically design them. Both methods have their pros and cons. I always prefer the first method when dealing with the application's main window and the second method for allowing the user to choose options etc. Don't get confused with VB (I 've used it for many years). VB is a high level language that "produces" the code for you. It does not use the second method at all. Since you decided to work in Assembly, it means that you want to have full power. Use it!
Regards,
akyprian
kidcrack,
There are two ways to have windows in your windows applications. You either write the code or use a resource editor to graphically design them. Both methods have their pros and cons. I always prefer the first method when dealing with the application's main window and the second method for allowing the user to choose options etc. Don't get confused with VB (I 've used it for many years). VB is a high level language that "produces" the code for you. It does not use the second method at all. Since you decided to work in Assembly, it means that you want to have full power. Use it!
Regards,
akyprian
Take a look at "Fresh" project. This one intend to be a really visual style RAD. The idea is to make IDE that will make most of the standard work in the application and the programmer will write only specific things.
Unfortunately in this moment Fresh is in pre-alpha stage, so it is not useful, but the developement goes quick, so, after 2 or 3 months maybe we will have alpha version.
Regards.
Unfortunately in this moment Fresh is in pre-alpha stage, so it is not useful, but the developement goes quick, so, after 2 or 3 months maybe we will have alpha version.
Regards.
You two look like twins
LOL I can see the resemblance :grin:
kidcrack,
When you're programming with asm you have to get used to writing a lot of code. With asm you can do a lot but often its a lot of work too :grin:
Easy Assembler Shell (EAS) ver 5
http://www.deepsoftware.ru/eas/
http://www.deepsoftware.ru/eas/
Why pay for something when you can get it for free. $39.00 US for a copy is a bit steep when RadASM does an extremely good job and costs nothing.
I think a modified version of KetilO's resource editor could be made with a list of all recieved messages for that control. And as you click on these messages the code for them appears in a small code window. The program would generate the ASM code from templates and the little code pieces for each message. Later on subclassing/superclassing and custom controls could be added allowing to create a rather advanced control toolbox. GUI development could grow exponentially faster than todays ASM methods.
I think most of the code is already there being used in RadASM! KetilO? :)
I think most of the code is already there being used in RadASM! KetilO? :)
Hi bitRake,
I think that the collapsible procs can be used to good effect here. Say for example you could attach a proc name to a subclassed control. You could double click the control and edit the subclassing procedure for that specific control and have a list of control specific messages drop down with a ctrl-click or something. This would be possible as RadASM would not be required to judge where to inject the code, you create the subclassing then assign it to a control. This is a high level RAD feature that can be implemented with the current capabilities of radasm. The same could be done with dialogs or anything created in the dialog editor.
Also, I create a lot of superclassed custom controls, there should be a feature to assign a base class to a UDC that will allow radasm to show the right properties instead of the generic static control it shows now. For example if I superclass a toolbar I would like to assign toolbar properties to the UDC in the editor.
I think that the collapsible procs can be used to good effect here. Say for example you could attach a proc name to a subclassed control. You could double click the control and edit the subclassing procedure for that specific control and have a list of control specific messages drop down with a ctrl-click or something. This would be possible as RadASM would not be required to judge where to inject the code, you create the subclassing then assign it to a control. This is a high level RAD feature that can be implemented with the current capabilities of radasm. The same could be done with dialogs or anything created in the dialog editor.
Also, I create a lot of superclassed custom controls, there should be a feature to assign a base class to a UDC that will allow radasm to show the right properties instead of the generic static control it shows now. For example if I superclass a toolbar I would like to assign toolbar properties to the UDC in the editor.
hello, i'm working on a visual masm32 project just like visual basic or delphi works.
Anyone interested in helping me?
---------------->http://www.asmcommunity.net/board/cryptmail.php?tauntspiders=in.your.face@nomail.for.you&id=e772bc9ce04b70b0304f76ad4e83fa14
remember: everything will be open source and freeware
Anyone interested in helping me?
---------------->http://www.asmcommunity.net/board/cryptmail.php?tauntspiders=in.your.face@nomail.for.you&id=e772bc9ce04b70b0304f76ad4e83fa14
remember: everything will be open source and freeware
hello, i'm working on a visual masm32 project just like visual basic or delphi works.
Hi. Unfortunately, you simply can't make truly visual IDE, WORKING like Delphi, using external compiler as MASM.
You can create only IDE LOOKING like Delphi. For truly visual features you need internal compiler.
We (me and the Fresh developement team) are working on the same conception, to create really visual IDE, but we have built-in compiler (FASM) It is MUST-HAVE for many of the really-visual features.
BTW, take a look: http://fresh.flatassembler.net and if you like what we make, why not to join the team. :)
Regards
Originally posted by JohnFound
You can create only IDE LOOKING like Delphi. For truly visual features you need internal compiler.
You can create only IDE LOOKING like Delphi. For truly visual features you need internal compiler.
Not sure why you feel this way. Perhaps some elaboration is in order?
There is nothing in Delphi that requires the compiler to be internal to the IDE. Yes, the IDE has to have a lot of smarts concerning the Object Pascal language, but the actual compiler isn't needed until you hit the compile or run button.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
I think he is refering to some like VB really, when yopu put in a line
hello this is a comment and you know that need a ' before, then when you type a comment
This will say you that is not a valid line, or even with a loop construction it will say you in that moment...
But yes, you only need the compiler/assembler for compile or assemble.
The ways that I see for get this working like VB is:
have a internal compiler that check the lines (like John say).
Have a assembler that suport past only part of the code, if posible only a line, but this need be part of the assembler (like incremental).
Have a internal interpreter.
The first two need a modification of the assembler, the third is more like understand really the language that you will handle in your application and not only provide rulres for give they a color, but for give your source a meaning for the enviroment, this is, that know the scopes of say, the macros, or know that a name: is a label, and others things, a interpreter, know that a mov eax, treax if not exist treax, give you a warning in that moment...
Here come other part, the debug, a real step byt step, and watch for variables, a debuger will be good, but you know, if you have integrated with the enviroment, nice, and more if the debug look like what you are writing.
Have a nice day or night.
hello this is a comment and you know that need a ' before, then when you type a comment
This will say you that is not a valid line, or even with a loop construction it will say you in that moment...
But yes, you only need the compiler/assembler for compile or assemble.
The ways that I see for get this working like VB is:
have a internal compiler that check the lines (like John say).
Have a assembler that suport past only part of the code, if posible only a line, but this need be part of the assembler (like incremental).
Have a internal interpreter.
The first two need a modification of the assembler, the third is more like understand really the language that you will handle in your application and not only provide rulres for give they a color, but for give your source a meaning for the enviroment, this is, that know the scopes of say, the macros, or know that a name: is a label, and others things, a interpreter, know that a mov eax, treax if not exist treax, give you a warning in that moment...
Here come other part, the debug, a real step byt step, and watch for variables, a debuger will be good, but you know, if you have integrated with the enviroment, nice, and more if the debug look like what you are writing.
Have a nice day or night.
Well what I was thinking..... when one program can control another one, why can't it be done that one program language IDE, "shows" what the user/programmer gets whilest creating a program. Such a program is an interpreter isn't it? In the meanwhile the sourcode is generated in the background for that application.....
I agree that we possibly need another assembler (forget the word compiler, i hate it) but i don't believe that it could not be done in masm.
I keep on working on it.... when I fail, than I confes both that i'm too stupid for it and that it could not be done...
But I believ that when it can be done in e.g. delphi, it could be done too in masm, Delphi is compiled into assembly language or not?..........
The main part is, when I'm alone, it takes lots of time. I managed programming OOP in assembler too, a thing that "could not be done" in the past, but with the aid of the objects.inc file, it is quit easy now...
Keep in touch please, your critics is very appreciated..........
thx either way
I agree that we possibly need another assembler (forget the word compiler, i hate it) but i don't believe that it could not be done in masm.
I keep on working on it.... when I fail, than I confes both that i'm too stupid for it and that it could not be done...
But I believ that when it can be done in e.g. delphi, it could be done too in masm, Delphi is compiled into assembly language or not?..........
The main part is, when I'm alone, it takes lots of time. I managed programming OOP in assembler too, a thing that "could not be done" in the past, but with the aid of the objects.inc file, it is quit easy now...
Keep in touch please, your critics is very appreciated..........
thx either way
Not sure why you feel this way. Perhaps some elaboration is in order?
There is nothing in Delphi that requires the compiler to be internal to the IDE. Yes, the IDE has to have a lot of smarts concerning the Object Pascal language, but the actual compiler isn't needed until you hit the compile or run button.
Well, of course you can make some separeate tools to make the work you need in the IDE, but if you want to use really powerful features, the algorithms of this tools will be very similar to those of compiler.
For example take "code completion" feature. (I write one for Fresh now) The "usual" way for asm IDE's is to open listbox with API functions of standard constants, etc. It works with fixed lists and this is definately wrong. The proper way is to use only those symbols, defined in the user program (including external modules, different API standard files etc.) This will give to the user code completion feature handling not only standard words, but defined in the user program too - labels (global and local, structures, variables, API functions, user defined functions, etc, etc.). This way may be implemented only by scaning the whole program using the same methods like compiler. Of course this is not true compilation, but it is 2/3 of the compiling process. If the IDE have internal assembler, it may use the same routines like in assembling process, but slighly different way. If the IDE have external assembler (in worst case - if the IDE supports several compilers) - it can't use the external assembler, because it does not allows partial compilation, so the only way is to make actually "partial assembler" with compatible syntax. You understand thar this may be pretty hard (or even imposible) work.
Regards
mmmm, I think in some way is bad to know that you have a bad typo, when you hit assemble and not before, then you go to the line and see o: what i do here!!!!, this type of errors typos, unmatched size or symbol not defined, etc. They need be knowed before you whant to run your program, or in this case assemble.
I know when you it the assembly button, you whant to run your program, not to correct the errors that you have in the file!!!!, then you know that when you it assembly you hit for check your error!... not for run it!!!, interesting not you think?
About only use the real defined ITEMS and suchs things, yes, this is the way to do it. know what is a equate and including external modules, different API standard files etc.) But only the ones that you include.
Also in this way you hit two by one, first you not use this linked list, that some times need be reinvented... ok not reinvented, but rewrited when some change, or a inclomplete set os structs members, in this way, you will always have the correct, if the included file have the corect definitions of structs.
In some way is waste of assembly time let the typo errors to the assembler, because that error are of the programmer, you know code-time, and in some way are lost of time to the programner, because the time that invert in check is typo errors (when he can be informed by the IDE or IIDE.. aka intelligent integrated developevement enviroment... or you like more SIDE sensitive inte... you know, also if you have much time coding, and you dont remember for example:
you normally all the times name a label like lblstr, but now in this programm you have defined only a lbl, then in your code you do:
mov eax, lblstr you will lost time remembering what variable is suposed to be ... (because you have now your app complete and a lot of other vars), will be nice some type of advice, like a (popup description)
Have a nice day or night.
I know when you it the assembly button, you whant to run your program, not to correct the errors that you have in the file!!!!, then you know that when you it assembly you hit for check your error!... not for run it!!!, interesting not you think?
About only use the real defined ITEMS and suchs things, yes, this is the way to do it. know what is a equate and including external modules, different API standard files etc.) But only the ones that you include.
Also in this way you hit two by one, first you not use this linked list, that some times need be reinvented... ok not reinvented, but rewrited when some change, or a inclomplete set os structs members, in this way, you will always have the correct, if the included file have the corect definitions of structs.
In some way is waste of assembly time let the typo errors to the assembler, because that error are of the programmer, you know code-time, and in some way are lost of time to the programner, because the time that invert in check is typo errors (when he can be informed by the IDE or IIDE.. aka intelligent integrated developevement enviroment... or you like more SIDE sensitive inte... you know, also if you have much time coding, and you dont remember for example:
you normally all the times name a label like lblstr, but now in this programm you have defined only a lbl, then in your code you do:
mov eax, lblstr you will lost time remembering what variable is suposed to be ... (because you have now your app complete and a lot of other vars), will be nice some type of advice, like a (popup description)
Have a nice day or night.
Originally posted by raidu
Well what I was thinking..... when one program can control another one, why can't it be done that one program language IDE, "shows" what the user/programmer gets whilest creating a program. Such a program is an interpreter isn't it? In the meanwhile the sourcode is generated in the background for that application.....
Well what I was thinking..... when one program can control another one, why can't it be done that one program language IDE, "shows" what the user/programmer gets whilest creating a program. Such a program is an interpreter isn't it? In the meanwhile the sourcode is generated in the background for that application.....
Actually, I believe the term you are referring to is "incremental compiler". That is, it does a partial assembly of each statement (as much as possible) during input.
I agree that we possibly need another assembler (forget the word compiler, i hate it) but i don't believe that it could not be done in masm.
Well, it *could* be done using MASM, but you'd wind up duplicating a lot of the code that exists in MASM. So it probably wouldn't be worth it.
I keep on working on it.... when I fail, than I confes both that i'm too stupid for it and that it could not be done...
Don't sell yourself short. After all, given a choice between genius and perserverance, I'll take perserverance very time.
But I believ that when it can be done in e.g. delphi, it could be done too in masm, Delphi is compiled into assembly language or not?..........
Delphi compiles directly into machine code (unlike, say, GCC that compiles into assembly and must be further processed by Gas).
The main part is, when I'm alone, it takes lots of time. I managed programming OOP in assembler too, a thing that "could not be done" in the past, but with the aid of the objects.inc file, it is quit easy now...
Keep in touch please, your critics is very appreciated..........
thx either way
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
I think he is refering to some like VB really, when yopu put in a line
hello this is a comment and you know that need a ' before, then when you type a comment
This will say you that is not a valid line, or even with a loop construction it will say you in that moment...
Well, I didn't get the impression that this is what was being done (that is, creating what is known as a "syntax-directed editor", but if this is what's going on, I applaud the effort. Syntax-directed editors are great for beginners. The sooner you can catch the syntax error, the faster development goes.
The ways that I see for get this working like VB is:
have a internal compiler that check the lines (like John say).
Have a assembler that suport past only part of the code, if posible only a line, but this need be part of the assembler (like incremental).
Have a internal interpreter.
Well, all you really need is a parser (that is, a syntax checker) that operates on a line by line basis. This turns out to be far less than a complete assembler (i.e., you don't need any code generation).
I actually designed an assembler that did this about 25 years ago (the Lisa 6502 assembler on the Apple II system, written back in 1978). The syntax directed editor was the second most popular feature of the assembler (first was the speed of the assembler; at about 20,000 lines/sec, it was 10 to 100 times faster than other assemblers available for the Apple II at the time).
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Hello everybody,
Why don't you have a look at EasyCode?
EasyCode is the most Visual Basic looking IDE that you have ever seen. Download it at:
http://www.elprogramari.com/English/Download/EasyCode.zip
Regards,
Why don't you have a look at EasyCode?
EasyCode is the most Visual Basic looking IDE that you have ever seen. Download it at:
http://www.elprogramari.com/English/Download/EasyCode.zip
Regards,
I agree with rsala. Though I personally don't use EasyCode, as I have Dev-IDE (a minimized IDE I coded for more or less personal tastes), I have many friends who have programmed in Visual Basic for many years and all of them find EasyCode to be exactly what they want. My personal opinion is that you should take time and actually learn the windows API so you can code without such IDE's, then use the IDE's to speed application development. But to each thier own.
Regards,
Bryant Keller (aka Synfire)
Regards,
Bryant Keller (aka Synfire)