Perhaps we can create a new forum for RadASM et al...



Thanks,
_Shawn
Posted on 2001-11-01 11:51:19 by _Shawn
I think that it would be an excellent idea for those interested in following RADASM's development, or assisting with it.

But I wish that it could also be done for Ewayne's ASMEDIT too.

Both programs are really well done, and deserve seperate grouping for the reasons above.
Posted on 2001-11-03 16:48:26 by yrret
Good point... how about a forum called "ASM IDE's"???




Thanks,
_Shawn
Posted on 2001-11-03 17:02:42 by _Shawn
Excellent idea.
I'm a beginner myself, but I like both programs. That will certainly help those interested in those programs to get right to the latest info etc., without having to search through all the other messages. I hope some others look at this thread and consider this possibility too.

Thanks
Posted on 2001-11-03 17:25:46 by yrret
only 2 yay's is a bit meager :-/
Posted on 2001-11-05 12:41:28 by Hiroshimator
Make that 3 yays. :)
I'm working on an add-in for RadASM and would love a place to post threads about it without cluttering the main board. I'm almost ready to release the first version (it might be actually useful to people now).
Posted on 2001-11-05 13:38:33 by Irving W.
Here is another "aye"

Or, in the style of Ali G, "aihhhhh"
Posted on 2001-11-05 15:52:40 by sluggy
i think its an good idea for new forum: "ASM IDE's"
sign me in!:alright:
Posted on 2001-11-05 16:36:37 by NEMO
I think a seperate forum for "IDE development" is a good idea. Both Ewayne and Ketil0 are doing good work that extends the choice for assembler programmers and the support appears to be there from the people who are using them.

A seperate forum may help if external support was desired by either of the authors as well as a few of the other projects around for IDEs.

Regards,

hutch@movsd.com
Posted on 2001-11-05 16:52:29 by hutch--
Well, there you got it... the Father of win32 assembly programming himself voiced his support... what else do we need? (ha ha ha) :grin:



Thanks,
_Shawn
Posted on 2001-11-05 17:12:25 by _Shawn
yay! :alright:
Posted on 2001-11-05 18:01:01 by bitRAKE
Shawn,

I am flattered with the title but sad to say many others have trod this path before me, Sven Schrieber, Iczelion, Steve Gibson etc ...

You must remember that we have members who have been writing assembler since the days of mainframes, can write multiple dialects and can probably debug the code in their sleep by memory from punchcards and if all else fails, can dump the core in OCTAL and patch it live.

Just another fellow traveller plying their trade to ensure you young guys can Rock 'n Roll (disco, punk, techno, country, whatever) with the tools of the trade, produce binary of excellence (we are watching you) and even make a buck out of it. :tongue:

Regards,

hutch@movsd.com
Posted on 2001-11-05 19:47:29 by hutch--
Yay as well... :)


BTW: I had to learn Octal eons ago, not like its challenging, but i never did understand what purpose or advantage (if any) it serves over hex...??

NaN
Posted on 2001-11-06 01:15:28 by NaN
NaN,

If I have it right, its because you can count OCTAL on your fingers without using your thumbs.

Regards,

hutch@movsd.com
Posted on 2001-11-06 01:55:07 by hutch--
Yeah, I hate taking off my shoes for hex. :)
Posted on 2001-11-06 15:51:00 by bitRAKE
Octal made a lot of sense on machines that had word sizes of 12-bits, 24-bits, 36-bits, 48-bits, etc.
It also made a lot of sense when 6-bit character sets were still common.
Some of these machines used 15-bit addresses.

Fully octal machines are museum pieces now.

If you look carefully at how x86 instructions are encoded, you'll see an octal machine. So there are some uses for octal.
Posted on 2001-11-06 16:12:35 by tank
Both Ewayne and Ketil0 maybe should join forces. I don't understand the programs just yet. Someone said they both are good so Both Ewayne and Ketil0 should build one big bad IDE together only to be founded at Win32ASM Community Messageboard . Had to put in my 2 cent in. Just an idea.

Must be FAST and FLAWLESS. So I guest there is a lot to be discussed and some things to be added and some things to be removed or imporved upon. ( expecially the one with the colored text in it. )
Posted on 2001-11-06 17:26:14 by cmax

BTW: I had to learn Octal eons ago, not like its challenging, but i never did understand what purpose or advantage (if any) it serves over hex...??

I read a text fragment a while ago that explained why octal was
pretty neat when dealing with opcode construction on the x86 platform.
It made a lot of sense, and with that little text and the intel manuals,
punching out a "hello world" (for dos) in octal was pretty easy...
a bit easier than hex actually (and no, we aren't talking about
manually memorized opcodes here, we're talking about hand-constructing
each and every field of the opcodes.)


Now, of course it's totally pointless hand-constructing opcodes,
but it was fun for about half an hour. And the insight is useful
if writing an assembler or a disassembler.
Posted on 2001-11-07 02:56:22 by f0dder
Some of the chemists associated with our lab (I am no chemist) are working on extending the genetic alphabet... As you probobly already know, DNA has 4 standard letters ACGT & that the pairing usually goes A:T & C:G. The method of these pairings is thru hydrogen-bonds which have hydrogen acceptors & donors which you can think of as positive & negative charge distributions or logically as 0s & 1s. What's relevant here is that DNA is set up for 3 per base pairing (A:T only uses 2 tho). What the chemists are doing is trying to add bases to the genetic alphabet to cover more of the octal possibilities. There are also issues of spacial (steric) constraints & symmetry that complicate things but at it's base the underlying concept is octal.

So you never know where this octal stuff will pop up ;)

Why do this? Well it has to do with origin of life questions that spin off into areas better gotten to over a pitcher of brew.
Posted on 2001-11-07 11:29:34 by rafe