Betov, I was reading a post of you're about writing tutorials from a few days ago. I'm in the process of writing an IDE for assembly (almost to go into beta) and the documentation will be immaculate). I hope to include some of the already available documentation on the net about win32 assembly, and write some of my own. It's a free project for the good of the community. If you would like to help write, drop me a line. The documentation (other than the IDE), I am currently going over all the api's seperated by what platform they're supported (win95/98/me/nt/2k) and proiding not only syntax for masm (tasm, maybe) but also examples of how it might be used. There will also be literature for newbie to intermediate. I don't know if I can write advanced win32 asm yet. Iczelion: These help files I'm talking about are in compiled html help format and is fully searchable and such. I have (for my own reasons) converted you're tuturials into a chm, I was wondering if I could have your permission to make it available. It's up to date as recent as your richedit 33,34,35 tutorials. Anyone else: if you're interested in contributing, be my guest. I have license of RoboHelp Office 9.1 (latest), so I'll convert everything to it, and it can also do webhelp or normal html help as a website on the hard drive. Let me know... Thanks all
You can distribute my tutorials in chm format so long as they are available free of charge.
I don't remember how many new Asm IDE project i have seen here. Really a crazy lot. They all seam to live about 6 months. Good luck to yours, but what do you reject in Visual Assembler IDE for NASM or Spasm IDE or this last one based on Ultra-Edit for the awfull MASM? As long as every one of us will rebuild the world by himself, things will remain unchanged. Building an IDE + Doc + Tutorials for Asm32 + Tutorial for Win32 + Doc for Api calls in one single project is out of reason. I will not contribute, i think, and certainaly not in a MASM oriented project (i only wish to kill MASM and to f*** Bill, Randy and Hutch). Sorry, and good luck again. betov.
You sound a bit bitter about something. I don't hope to change the world. I don't even think I can produce an intense amount of documentation, just some here, some there. The project is not MASM oriented. It's more of a shell IDE that can be used and configured for any assembler or compiler or whatever else you want, hell, even a scripting language if you're up to it. I see how much you respect Iczelion, and his tutorials are geared towards MASM, but yet you bash everyone else who chooses to support it? Nonetheless, we all are entitled to our opinions and certainly I respect yours. If I had it my way, I'd create my own assembler but since I don't know how, I guess I can only use someone elses. Cheers, Shawn
Shawn, Good luck to you in your project. If you are shure you are right - you shouldn't pay attention to any opinions except the constructive ones. I have relativele full documentation set on MASM/Intel/AMD programming/ optimisation/tricks in various formats. Docs on MASM is dated as 1992, but it covers in details all the modern features of it, HL constructs including. I'm ready to format it as .chm and present it to community as a stub for future detalisation/clarification/commenting. I'm ready to participate in project in this way. DVA
DVA, I was actually going to modernize the MASM documentation also. I was worried about copywrite laws and stuff, I'm not sure if they would get upset or anything. The project home page is http://visualassembler.freeservers.com It's a bit bare right now, but I'm ready to post the first beta here within the next two weeks or so. Anything you would like to contribute, email me. Just keep in mind, I will put _everything_ into a chm, and the master chm will be linked to others, so that it's fully searchable. Also, I plan to integrate help into the editor, so pressing F1 takes you to help on the intruction or whatever, and then perhaps F2 maybe to a tutorial that includes that same thing. One step at a time, I expect this to be in beta about 6-9 months. I'm only one person writing it in my spare time. Anyway, thanks Shawn
I just drop a few lines to tell that I use the Ultra-Edit-IDE betov was talking about... and I like it... Peace & Harmony, JimmyClif
I'm also writing an editor for asm. It's been under development off and on for about 3 years. First time i'm going to release it on the net will be this month. It has one bonus over all the others. It's open source. Check the details out. www.asmstudio.cjb.net crosswinds is down now, so my site is too, but check back soon.
Shawn, after reading your site I noticed a few things. You're programming your IDE in vb. I am too. Perhaps you and I can take both of our IDEs and ideas and make the best for both us and everyone else, i'm almost done, i'm sure you're almost done too. I'm sure both of us together could make a really powerful IDE. Because i sure know that a two man team could get a lot more done than just a one. But one thing, if you would like to work with me, i would like to release as open source too. If you're interested e-mail or reply back.
Shawn, Its funny, but from what you've outlined, sounds exactly what I (new to 32ASM) have been wishing for, mostly in the sense of documentation and example. Best of luck and I look forward to seeing its release. NaN
Shawn, My set of MASM docs is an exact copy of MS documentation, retyped by someone and somewhere from original printed docs in the very early 90's. Being converted into chm format and revised on the modern concepts base, it will be invaluable knowledgebase for beginners (and for professionals - as a reference). I doubt, MS will fight for its copyright in such a case. All docs on Intel/AMD anyway must be revised - they are very hard to read and undertand for non-professionals. If our version will contain the proper copyright references - it, I think, will not cause any objections from their parts. I'll e-mail you the first - very rough chm version. It is a result of 1-2 hour work - as a stub only. Very bad graphics, poor formatting and no cross-references. My opinion on the ASM IDE problem - a bit later. DVA
Actually, the ide is not being programmed in VB... I professionaly am a Research & Development programmer for a company that primarily does VB (I have to sometimes, but I can do anything I want to benefit the company and bring satisfaction to the consumer). I'm programming the IDE in Delphi. I only started a month ago, but I like it better than other languages. There isn't much of a learning curve for me, but because of it, this is taking a little longer than expected. I had a protype in VB I mde in hours, an exact image of the finaly product. I greatly doubt any assembly programmer wants to use an IDE coded in Visual Basic, for that reason, and for the shear power, I choose to make it in a more powerful and featursome language. Besides, any controls I buy, for the same $500 of one ActiveX control (without source), I can get 20 highly powerful (moreso that their AX counterpart) with source and better support. At either rate, I'm not going to introduce code bloat or runtimes for this IDE or what it produces. Just wait and see, it'll be wonderful. I've been researching this project for over a year and I'm ready to start building it for the community. I'll be open source soon enough, as soon as I have all teh copywrite and intellectual issues dealt with.
I'm Asm_Freak, Anyways... I disagree with you saying that an asm programmer would not want to use an IDE programmed in Visual Basic. Visual Basic is very powerful, and you being a VB programmer, I'm surprised you don't disagree. Anyone would want to use a well programmed IDE as long as it offers good features, reguardless of any language it was programmed in. And Visual Basic offers plenty of power, I can get the job done quick, and use plenty of preprogrammed code. Jon
Jon, I believe programmed properly, VB is just as viable as anything else. A few points to make is that first, for the same amount of money to purchase one ActiveX control for VB, I can (and have) purchased many excellent VCL controls complete with source and much more powerful, fully-featured, efficient and prettier aesthetically than it's ActiveX counterpart -- and with much better performance. There's not as many to choose from, but they are a sexy alternative when certain needs arise. This will not make heavy use of them, but, there has been the need and no ActiveX component exists that suited that need. The other reason, is that by programming it in Delphi and C++, I can much easier port to Linux once Kylix is released -- or other platforms. If I program in VB then any other platform I support will have to be redesigned. For now, it will support win32, that's the point of this particular tool. But, I have active plans to port to linux. I find it's easer to not use a tool that's tied to a platform if I want to make cross-platform ports, a language or particular syntax, as well. The third thing, is that I've worked with VB and have done some amazingly advanced stuff in VB many VB programmers aren't aware of -- I'm always pushing it in defense of itself. I'm fully aware of it's limits and strengths (and indeed, tradeoffs), and what it can effectively handle, performance, and as close to the OS it can be (which natively isn't very close). In VB, I have to declare every API and constant, or create a type libary to do it for me. The point, is that I have to create more work for myself that's readily available in C/Delphi/C++/Assembly or some others. Over the years, I've learned that different jobs require different tools. To limit myself to a tool of preference or whatever, is limiting my possibilities. Visual Basic has incredible potential for a great many things, and I use it often. I strongly defend it. But for this particular purpose, based on my requirements, it's not the tool for the job. That doesn't mean I can't do it in VB (I already have). Just that I wish to port it. API's will exist so people can extend it. To do so with VB means all plug-ins have to be COM-Compliant. I don't want to put such requirements on the users. Specially if they're coding in Assembly, why force them to write all the OLE/COM stuff and IDL just to extend it? And why bind them to Windows in that way when I plan to port? I'll have to redo the plug-in architecture, and thereby, much of the underlying architecture to support something else (since COM isn't as strongly supported on other platforms). Besides, when it's all done and said, I plan to make version 2 with the result of version one, using itself. No programming tool is ever what it can be or should be until the developer has to use it himself.
ASM_Freak, As soon as you're site comes back up, I'll take a look at your project and perhaps we can arrange something...? Don't take my last post the wrong way. I'm not against programming anything in VB. Just that the requirements I define for this project don't mesh with what VB can produce for me (easily). Thanks, Shawn
Shawn, We have some problem with e-mail. On my letter to you with the doc included I receive <<
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the message returned below.
The Postfix program
: unknown user: "shawn">>>
Clarify the problem.
DVA, Hmm... that's odd... firstname.lastname@example.org works fine for me. Try once again (unless you have)... I have an alternate email account which I use to collect spam, at 400+ emails a day, it'll be tough to find yours...
VB = :(((( VB should be used for internal RAD only. It is big, clumsy, has zero performance and generates huge .exe files. And it requiers external .dll files that not everyone has (or wants to have) I for instance cannot run a single program written in Visual Basic. I chose not to install that security risk in the already unsecure windows when i installed it. Im tired of downloding programs that in C or ASM would be 20-100Kb but are 1MB i VB. It's outrageous. Sites like newapps.com and download.com should force program authors to tell which language they used when the wrote the program. That way I could stay away from that useless piece of crap microshit has created!