rhyde@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> santosh wrote:
> >
> > How are we expected to understand your private language. It's bad
> > enough that there are several x86 assemblers with incompatible
> > syntaxes, even with regards to basic instructions, without having to
> > know the "hobby" languages of every Tom, Dick & Harry.
>
>
> Actually, what he is doing is a "stealth" way of getting people used to
> seeing the language. Of course, until there is a decent user manual and
> tutorial on using the language, people are going to be of little help.
Unless he can demonstrate that his assembly langauge, if it _is_
assembly at all, holds significant improvement over the well
established ones, his queries are going to be marginalised. But,
AFAICS, that hasn't dampened his enthusiasm over his 'line-noise'
langauge.
> In any case, I remember Jim Neil doing a similar thing with Terse many,
> many, years ago. Though rather than asking synthesized question, Jim
> actually answered people's assembly language questions in Terse and
> then also provided the MASM output from Terse (for those who couldn't
> read Terse). I thought that was an excellent approach for spreading the
> news about his assembly language.
I rather feel that a/b may not get the same results that Jim may have
got.
:)
In any case one other a.l.a regular should be heartened by the fact
that his 'alphabet-soup' syntax is actually eminently readable compared
to this one.
:)
|
