Today I find a link about assembler to asp.net

http://home.worldonline.dk/viksoe/asmil.htm

thought it would be intresting for you guys :rolleyes:
Posted on 2004-04-11 18:40:58 by bj1500
There are some sections in the .NET SDK that talk about managed code and interfacing with the .NET libraries from C/C++. So based on that it should be readily apparent to ASM programmers who are also familiar with C/C++ that they can also take advantage of the .NET libraries.
Posted on 2004-04-11 20:01:01 by iblis
Bjarke is mad ;)

Anyway, having seen his stuff "back in the days" of pascal programming, knowing he's danish, and reading the page, I get the impression this whole project is for fun and quite a mockery of the people that cling on the assembly as if it was the holy grail.

If you want to do anything "asm" in .net, learn MSIL.

If you have half a clue, write most of the stuff in a HLL (C#, java, c++, fortran, WHAT EVER), and keep the speed-sensitive stuff in a managed language (managed C/C++, managed assembly, whatever). Writing .net bytecode in a lowleve language just doesn't make sense.
Posted on 2004-04-11 20:16:41 by f0dder
Just a little nit...

Actually, "managed" code is the "safe" code using MSIL.

For speed, you want "unmanaged" code. That is, "not managed" by the .NET framework.
Posted on 2004-04-11 22:04:30 by tenkey

Bjarke is mad ;)

Anyway, having seen his stuff "back in the days" of pascal programming, knowing he's danish, and reading the page, I get the impression this whole project is for fun and quite a mockery of the people that cling on the assembly as if it was the holy grail.

If you want to do anything "asm" in .net, learn MSIL.

If you have half a clue, write most of the stuff in a HLL (C#, java, c++, fortran, WHAT EVER), and keep the speed-sensitive stuff in a managed language (managed C/C++, managed assembly, whatever). Writing .net bytecode in a lowleve language just doesn't make sense.


It is called choice. You may not understand why, but some people choose to program in assembly for one reason or another. It may not meet your approval in terms of efficiency, but it isn't about what you want now is it ;)

I agree with not doing so with .Net though, real VMs will ensure the existance of the assembly programmer... cheap knock-offs like Java and .Net don't count.
Posted on 2004-04-12 00:16:24 by SpooK
Is it just me or what exactly is the purpose of using this particular 80386 assembly langauge interpreter/compiler?

I thought the whole purpose of assembly language was to work at the LOWEST LEVEL possible on the hardware and to therefore make the fastest and smallest programs possible. Hence, if you wish to do so on an x86, you code it in x86 ASM and if you wish to do so on a Sun SparcStation, you learn Sparc ASM.

The purpose of HLLs is so that you don't have to go to this low of a level and to include a bit of portability there (well, any decent HLL). Otherwise, why not do it in assembly?

But why on earth would you want to code in 80306 assembly language when the target binary is NOT 80386 binary?

That's pointless at best and just flat out stupid at worst. I can understand maybe as a "proof-of-concept" but blah

That's about as fruitful as building yourself a compiler that compiles x86 asm into Z80 asm which you will then use on your calculator. Why on earth wouldn't you just use the Z80 asm in the first place!?

And, here, you'd use the MSIL.
Posted on 2004-04-24 09:43:30 by ShortCoder
why do keep on having these asm vs hll debates here :rolleyes:
Posted on 2004-04-24 12:14:51 by clippy