RosAsm and Libraries, again

Guga wrote:
> Yes...i have forgoten to mention the incIncluder.
>
>
> The incIncluder is simple to use. On the separated teams i posted
> before. you can have
>
> a) Team 1 --> Working on Main project...called game.exe
>
> b) Team2 --> working on a part of the source code for the
> particles...they can name their sources as particle.asm
>
> c) Team3 --> working on a part of the source code for the Gui...they
> can name their sources as Gui.asm
>
> At the end of each team job (or if they only wants to test as the
> actual stage of the develo=B4pments. The game source will  conatins
> something like this:
>


You really don't understand the problem of namespace pollution, do you?
Include files are not the solution you seek. Though they are slightly
better than monolithic source files in terms of managing source code,
they still suffer from many of the problems of monolithic files, plus
the fact that they slow things down quite a bit.


>
>
> When you assemble it, all different parts of the source will be merged
> on the main app.

So as long as you're agreeing with the fact that breaking the project
up into multiple files that can be edited separately, what is your
fundamental problem with "doing it the right way" and using statically
compiled object modules?  Clearly you see the benefit of multiple file
projects. Why do you insist on trumpeting Rene's "party line" that
there is no benefit to static linking? Why don't you guys just break
down and add this facility to RosAsm? Even if you don't use it
yourselves, it should be clear that the fundamental reason that RosAsm
is a failure in the marketplace is because of the lack of ability to do
static linking. If adding conditional assembly and branch displacement
optimization was a reasonable thing to do in order to attract users to
RosAsm, why not static linking? Why do you insist on forcing your
concept of programming onto an unwilling world? Why not give the world
what it wants and make them happy? Do you feel it's im****tant to force
your programming style unto an unwilling world?

Though I suspect that RosAsm's design makes it darn near impossible to
add static linking (burying source files in EXEs and that sort of
stuff), I can't imagine how writing a *disassembler* could be
considered to be less work than adding this one im****tant feature.
Given that you (wrongly) assume that the disassembler would be a
substitute for static linking, I'd suggest you reconsider your
development strategy. You're quickly producing a useless
(non-interactive) disassembler that's little more than a toy or demo,
at fantastic effort. With that same effort you could have given
assembly programmers what they *really* want - library and static
linking sup****t.

Cheers,
Randy Hyde