XML-based object orientated pre-Assembler

Discussion in 'XML' started by Jure Sah, Mar 3, 2005.

  1. Jure Sah

    Jure Sah Guest

    Hello,

    I have been promising an object orientated ASM IDE for a while now.
    Trying to make the best of what is already here, I have made a compiler,
    that will parse XML code and output ASM files.

    The program still needs an internet interface (will do that tommorow),
    but here is an example of what the code looks like, to wet your appetite:

    <?xml version="1.0"?>
    <code
    xml:base="http://my.webspace.com/"
    xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
    <Default xmlns:href="Default.xml"></Default>
    <RegisterA xmlns:href="AX.xml">
    <RegisterB xmlns:href="BX.xml">
    mov ax,00FFh
    mov bx,0FF0h
    cmp ax,bx
    mov cx,ax
    </RegisterB>
    </RegisterA>
    mov ax,cx
    </code>

    The point is, that since the compiler is W3C XML and XLink compilant,
    you can now use whichever XML editor (IDE) to work with your ASM code
    (colorfull, named XML tags tend to be lighter on the eyes, when you are
    looking for something in the code). The compiler works like this example:

    <Whatever xmlns:href="AX.xml">
    ...
    </Whatever>

    Relates to this file (AX.xml):

    <?xml version="1.0"?>
    <Compiler>
    <Begin>
    push ax<br>
    mov ax,0000h
    </Begin>
    <End>
    pop ax
    </End>
    </Compiler>

    To produce this code:

    push ax
    mov ax,0000h
    ...
    pop ax

    And while this example may seem silly, using this and an XML editor, it
    becomes much more unlikely for you to end up with an out-of sequence
    stack and any of the terrible consequences this usually brings. Not to
    mention the segments can be labeled, making the program easier to read.

    The XLink-ed XML of course, can be made to point to any ASM code you
    choose and best of all, they do not need to be on the machine your are
    compiling on, but anywhere on the internet. In this way you can define a
    simplified language with these XML objects, then put them on a web
    server and you never have to worry about them again, you can create
    programs that you share with your friends / coworkers over the internet
    and you only have to send them your XML program (which I might add is
    also doomed to be much more understanable than the compiled ASM to them)
    and if they wish to compile it, the components needed will be downloaded
    automatically durring the compilation procedure.

    The other good thing about this is that, if there ever will be large
    compatible databases of these XML objects online, porting an ASM program
    written in this XML language (to another ASM form or to diffirent
    hardware / software) will be simply a matter of changing the XML:base
    link (xml:base="http://my.webspace.com/") to point to another location,
    compile and viola, the code is ported.

    I might improove the language used in case it turns out to be too
    loosely compilant to W3C standards or if there are other practical
    aspects of the XML standard that can be used, but it will be
    backwards-compatible and I will avoid fixed high-level features such as
    the many in HLA. I have no intention of reinventing hot water.

    P.S.: You will notice that the XML compiler can also be used to compile
    anything else made up of text, not only ASM programs.

    Coming soon! Like... tommorow! Now I got to go to bed. =P

    --
    Model: INFJ
    Primary function: Coprocessor
    Secondary function: Cluster commander

    "None felt feline, so I discounted copycat syndrome..."
    -- Ghost Song
     
    Jure Sah, Mar 3, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jure Sah

    Percival Guest

    On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:26:14 +0100, Jure Sah wrote:

    [snip]

    I'd have to say that it is a very creative assembler you are creating...
    Though I do ask, what does XML give me over plain text?

    Vi and Emacs, very awesome general purpose text editors, both offer syntax
    highlighting, and plenty of assemblers know how to include files.

    Though this looks like it could work, I'd have to see the program itself
    though to make a decision.

    PS. Looks kinda like that Unified model Beth was talking about :)

    Percival
     
    Percival, Mar 4, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jure Sah

    Randall Hyde Guest

    "Jure Sah" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello,
    >
    > I have been promising an object orientated ASM IDE for a while now.
    > Trying to make the best of what is already here, I have made a compiler,
    > that will parse XML code and output ASM files.

    ....
    >
    > And while this example may seem silly, using this and an XML editor, it
    > becomes much more unlikely for you to end up with an out-of sequence
    > stack and any of the terrible consequences this usually brings. Not to
    > mention the segments can be labeled, making the program easier to read.


    It really sounds like you're trying to create an XML version of the
    fabled "BethTools" system (seach Google for details).

    >
    > The XLink-ed XML of course, can be made to point to any ASM code you
    > choose and best of all, they do not need to be on the machine your are
    > compiling on, but anywhere on the internet. In this way you can define a
    > simplified language with these XML objects, then put them on a web
    > server and you never have to worry about them again, you can create
    > programs that you share with your friends / coworkers over the internet
    > and you only have to send them your XML program (which I might add is
    > also doomed to be much more understanable than the compiled ASM to them)
    > and if they wish to compile it, the components needed will be downloaded
    > automatically durring the compilation procedure.


    And what's the point?

    >
    > The other good thing about this is that, if there ever will be large
    > compatible databases of these XML objects online, porting an ASM program
    > written in this XML language (to another ASM form or to diffirent
    > hardware / software) will be simply a matter of changing the XML:base
    > link (xml:base="http://my.webspace.com/") to point to another location,
    > compile and viola, the code is ported.


    Well, if you're going to give up machine dependence, which it sure
    seems to me like you're doing this, then why not just use a HLL?

    >
    > I might improove the language used in case it turns out to be too
    > loosely compilant to W3C standards or if there are other practical
    > aspects of the XML standard that can be used, but it will be
    > backwards-compatible and I will avoid fixed high-level features such as
    > the many in HLA. I have no intention of reinventing hot water.
    >
    > P.S.: You will notice that the XML compiler can also be used to compile
    > anything else made up of text, not only ASM programs.
    >
    > Coming soon! Like... tommorow! Now I got to go to bed. =P


    I wish you all the luck in the world, but have you answered a
    couple of important questions:

    1. "Who is the audience for this product?"
    2. "What is the purpose of this product?"
    3. "Why would someone use this product over other assemblers (or HLLs)?"

    HLA, for example, was designed to support beginning assembly
    language programmers. That completely answers the three questions above.
    What benefits are you proposing? Being able to edit your assembly programs
    with an XML editor isn't a great turn-on to most programmers around here.
    Indeed, speaking from experience, I can pretty much assure you that
    there are only a tiny fraction of existing assembly programmers who
    would be willing to switch to your system, once it's complete. That
    leaves beginners as the only large market for such a system. What
    benefits does this offer to those wanting to learn assembly? Perhaps
    those who already know XML? (I don't know...). Of course, if
    you're like Herbert and you just want to create an assembler for
    yourself, have at it.
    Cheers,
    Randy Hyde
     
    Randall Hyde, Mar 4, 2005
    #3
  4. Jure Sah

    Jure Sah Guest

    Randall Hyde wrote:
    >>And while this example may seem silly, using this and an XML editor, it
    >>becomes much more unlikely for you to end up with an out-of sequence
    >>stack and any of the terrible consequences this usually brings. Not to
    >>mention the segments can be labeled, making the program easier to read.

    >
    > It really sounds like you're trying to create an XML version of the
    > fabled "BethTools" system (seach Google for details).


    Google does not give any matches on that string.

    >>The XLink-ed XML of course, can be made to point to any ASM code you
    >>choose and best of all, they do not need to be on the machine your are
    >>compiling on, but anywhere on the internet. In this way you can define a
    >>simplified language with these XML objects, then put them on a web
    >>server and you never have to worry about them again, you can create
    >>programs that you share with your friends / coworkers over the internet
    >>and you only have to send them your XML program (which I might add is
    >>also doomed to be much more understanable than the compiled ASM to them)
    >>and if they wish to compile it, the components needed will be downloaded
    >>automatically durring the compilation procedure.

    >
    > And what's the point?


    That it is more readable, easier to organize and change, prevent
    doubling-up of work already done for other software and simpler to
    costumize to serve another purpose.

    >>The other good thing about this is that, if there ever will be large
    >>compatible databases of these XML objects online, porting an ASM program
    >> written in this XML language (to another ASM form or to diffirent
    >>hardware / software) will be simply a matter of changing the XML:base
    >>link (xml:base="http://my.webspace.com/") to point to another location,
    >>compile and viola, the code is ported.

    >
    > Well, if you're going to give up machine dependence, which it sure
    > seems to me like you're doing this, then why not just use a HLL?


    XMLc is not exclusive to use, you can quite simply use XMLc to compile
    programs which are then to be processed trough your HLL processor. XMLc
    is programming-language independent and still maintains it's full list
    of potential advantages.

    > I wish you all the luck in the world, but have you answered a
    > couple of important questions:
    >
    > 1. "Who is the audience for this product?"


    Perhaps, as you later mention, also myself, but generaly it could be either:
    1. Any ASM programmer who wishes to keep his code readable and reusable.
    2. Anyone who does not have enough experience to be able to smoothly
    read ASM code and can utilize a handy graphical representation of the code.
    3. Any group of people working togather on one ASM program.

    > 2. "What is the purpose of this product?"


    To provide a commonpoint for many diffirent programming languages, thus
    create an universal devolopment environment of tools hand for the
    devolopers and to make it up to globally accepted standards. For
    example: Provide the advantages of using XML editors to ASM programmers.

    > 3. "Why would someone use this product over other assemblers (or HLLs)?"


    Pointless question, I think those who are used to other assemblers or
    HLLs and find XMLc usable will be in fact using both (since XMLc
    produces code, not binaries). But I suppose the prospect of being
    object-orientated, internet-level portable and compilant to world
    standars, without making sacrafices on the effectivness of the code
    itself has got to attract some attention.

    > HLA, for example, was designed to support beginning assembly
    > language programmers. That completely answers the three questions above.
    > What benefits are you proposing? Being able to edit your assembly programs
    > with an XML editor isn't a great turn-on to most programmers around here.


    And you speak for all of them?

    > Indeed, speaking from experience, I can pretty much assure you that
    > there are only a tiny fraction of existing assembly programmers who
    > would be willing to switch to your system, once it's complete. That
    > leaves beginners as the only large market for such a system. What
    > benefits does this offer to those wanting to learn assembly? Perhaps
    > those who already know XML? (I don't know...). Of course, if
    > you're like Herbert and you just want to create an assembler for
    > yourself, have at it.


    The main idea behind this project was a while ago, when a friend working
    in the area of Artificial Inteligence, brought to my attention XML, the
    language where meaning can be described (at the time I was working on
    poly-dimensional context-based search spheres) in a simple hierarchical
    format, where the language is dnyamic and everything is refferenced to
    defenition maps that the XML is linked to over the internet.

    The point of that refference was that if everything is somewhere on the
    internet, and compilant to world standards, it is easy to use and does
    not have to be re-made. XML is also a language that enables you to put
    various kinds of information that various diffirent programs will be
    using, contextfully, in the same XML file. Being XML compilant you gain
    a lot and being able to utilize a language on top of another that gives
    you standard-compilance also means that the information stored within
    your code is:
    1. Manipulatable with any XML compilant editor
    2. Readable by any XML compilant reader (which may include several
    applications not interested in the ASM code within)

    So being XML compilant alone has a point.

    I suppose many more people have been taught XML than are willing to try
    ASM. XML has a future, raw ASM (they say) does not. People will use Java
    and simmilar programing languages because they share these
    characteristics of XML, but Java is a slow interpreted language. XMLc
    gives you all the advantages of being able to utilize modern programming
    language standards, it's language has and will continue to have plenty
    of usable editors worldwide and at the same time, leaves you with
    working, highly efficient and fully costumizable low-level code.

    I will, as far as I'm concerned, utilize the XMLc and create my objects
    and share them on the internet, perhaps once there are more of them,
    people who are new to ASM may seek to utilize those instead of going for
    raw ASM rightaway. But I suppose, as W3C says about XML, that it is a
    good standard that hopefully everybody will embrace as a part of good
    working praxis, and take that as a recomendation.

    But I will not force it on you, it is a usable tool and a good idea if
    you ask me, and it will be freeware.

    --
    Model: INFJ
    Primary function: Coprocessor
    Secondary function: Cluster commander

    "None felt feline, so I discounted copycat syndrome..."
    -- Ghost Song
     
    Jure Sah, Mar 4, 2005
    #4
  5. Jure Sah

    Jure Sah Guest

    Percival wrote:
    > I'd have to say that it is a very creative assembler you are creating...
    > Though I do ask, what does XML give me over plain text?
    >
    > Vi and Emacs, very awesome general purpose text editors, both offer syntax
    > highlighting, and plenty of assemblers know how to include files.


    <kidding> More portability in that case (Windows ;). </kidding>

    Well but generally:
    1. XML allows web-based refferences
    2. XML is more globally-accepted as a type simmilar to to
    object-orientated text, which leaves you with the poitential of using
    graphical-representation tools to display a finnished ASM program,
    allowing you to more easily explain the structure of your program to
    people who are not yet fammiliar with your code and require to be. I
    wonder if vi or emacs can do that. ;)

    > Though this looks like it could work, I'd have to see the program itself
    > though to make a decision.


    Noteworthily, I've made the devolopment version in MS VB, so if you
    can't run that, you're gonna have to wait until a final version when I
    translate it to C (or whatever prooves to be most suitable anyway).

    > PS. Looks kinda like that Unified model Beth was talking about :)


    Is that model world standard compilant?

    --
    Model: INFJ
    Primary function: Coprocessor
    Secondary function: Cluster commander

    "None felt feline, so I discounted copycat syndrome..."
    -- Ghost Song
     
    Jure Sah, Mar 4, 2005
    #5
  6. Jure Sah

    Randall Hyde Guest

    "Jure Sah" <> wrote in message
    news:gcXVd.9827$...
    > Randall Hyde wrote:
    > >>And while this example may seem silly, using this and an XML editor, it
    > >>becomes much more unlikely for you to end up with an out-of sequence
    > >>stack and any of the terrible consequences this usually brings. Not to
    > >>mention the segments can be labeled, making the program easier to read.

    > >
    > > It really sounds like you're trying to create an XML version of the
    > > fabled "BethTools" system (seach Google for details).

    >
    > Google does not give any matches on that string.


    Try a Google search on this very newsgroup.

    > > And what's the point?

    >
    > That it is more readable, easier to organize and change, prevent
    > doubling-up of work already done for other software and simpler to
    > costumize to serve another purpose.


    Thus far, the examples really haven't demonstrated this.
    Sure, I know what XML promises, but until you've got
    a lot of code working in your system, it's hard to predict
    what the impact will be.

    As for preventing duplication of effort, I'm afraid you have
    far too much faith in your fellow programmer's willingness to
    switch from the way they now do things. All that will happen
    is that you add yet another way to do things to the mix.
    That's not bad, mind you, but...

    >
    > > I wish you all the luck in the world, but have you answered a
    > > couple of important questions:
    > >
    > > 1. "Who is the audience for this product?"

    >
    > Perhaps, as you later mention, also myself, but generaly it could be

    either:
    > 1. Any ASM programmer who wishes to keep his code readable and reusable.


    There are *other* solutions, too.
    Most of them don't involve a familiarity with XML as a prerequisite.
    Considering the number of people around here who don't even know C
    as an indication (and who refuse to learn it), I think you'll find you have
    an uphill battle. Sure, when the system is fully functional, you'll be able
    to claim that knowing XML is not a prereq, but I doubt many assembly
    programmers would believe this (it's their nature to want to know how
    things work "under the covers").

    > 2. Anyone who does not have enough experience to be able to smoothly
    > read ASM code and can utilize a handy graphical representation of the

    code.

    Again, the proof is in the final product.
    It's a nice idea, but we shall see.
    A better product would be something like ASMFlow that takes an
    existing assembly program and produces the XML code that will
    do what you want, without forcing its initial use on the programmer.

    > 3. Any group of people working togather on one ASM program.


    We can do that today, using standard tools.

    >
    > > 2. "What is the purpose of this product?"

    >
    > To provide a commonpoint for many diffirent programming languages, thus
    > create an universal devolopment environment of tools hand for the
    > devolopers and to make it up to globally accepted standards. For
    > example: Provide the advantages of using XML editors to ASM programmers.


    Okay, but now you've got to convince everyone that this is a good idea.
    I daresay that most assembly programmers wouldn't have a clue why
    using an XML editor to edit assembly is a good idea (I sure don't).

    >
    > > 3. "Why would someone use this product over other assemblers (or

    HLLs)?"
    >
    > Pointless question, I think those who are used to other assemblers or
    > HLLs and find XMLc usable will be in fact using both (since XMLc
    > produces code, not binaries). But I suppose the prospect of being
    > object-orientated, internet-level portable and compilant to world
    > standars, without making sacrafices on the effectivness of the code
    > itself has got to attract some attention.


    But after the initial attention, who will use it?

    >
    > > HLA, for example, was designed to support beginning assembly
    > > language programmers. That completely answers the three questions above.
    > > What benefits are you proposing? Being able to edit your assembly

    programs
    > > with an XML editor isn't a great turn-on to most programmers around

    here.
    >
    > And you speak for all of them?


    Based on my experiences with the programmers around here,
    I probably speak of (rather than 'for') most of them, yes.

    > The point of that refference was that if everything is somewhere on the
    > internet, and compilant to world standards, it is easy to use and does
    > not have to be re-made. XML is also a language that enables you to put
    > various kinds of information that various diffirent programs will be
    > using, contextfully, in the same XML file. Being XML compilant you gain
    > a lot and being able to utilize a language on top of another that gives
    > you standard-compilance also means that the information stored within
    > your code is:
    > 1. Manipulatable with any XML compilant editor
    > 2. Readable by any XML compilant reader (which may include several
    > applications not interested in the ASM code within)
    >
    > So being XML compilant alone has a point.


    Sure.
    But will other people accept that point.
    That's all I'm asking.
    Cheers,
    Randy HYde
     
    Randall Hyde, Mar 4, 2005
    #6
  7. Jure Sah

    Beth Guest

    Percival wrote:
    > PS. Looks kinda like that Unified model Beth was talking about :)


    Well, if it _looks_ like that, then I assure you "appearances are
    deceptive" because what Jure is doing here seems to be different...kind
    of...there is a similarity in catering for "object-orientated assembly" BUT
    that's about as far as it goes, I think, because the "approaches" being
    taken appear quite dissimilar to me...Jure is using that whole XML thing
    and the subject line says "pre-assembler" (what Rene would call a
    "pre-parser" ;) and about using XML editors, so the approach seems very
    different...

    In essence, we're just going for "hierarchical labels" with the
    "block-structured" mechanism...and we're only really adding "{}" to
    otherwise ordinary NASM-like assembly code...this XML thing doesn't appear
    to be quite as "simplistic" as that from the examples...

    Beth :)
     
    Beth, Mar 4, 2005
    #7
  8. Jure Sah

    Beth Guest

    Jure Sah wrote:
    > 2. XML is more globally-accepted as a type simmilar to to
    > object-orientated text, which leaves you with the poitential of using
    > graphical-representation tools to display a finnished ASM program,
    > allowing you to more easily explain the structure of your program to
    > people who are not yet fammiliar with your code and require to be. I
    > wonder if vi or emacs can do that. ;)


    Graphs!!! Of course!! Graphs!!! Why didn't I think of that? Graphical
    structural representations...thanks for the suggestion! ;)...

    [ snip ]
    > > PS. Looks kinda like that Unified model Beth was talking about :)

    >
    > Is that model world standard compilant?


    <response>
    <kidding>
    No, it doesn't suffer from being "ruined by committee" in being forced to
    be rooted to 1960s technologies for "backwards compatibility" with ENIAC
    and so forth ;)
    <sarcasm>
    XML, you say? Oh, yeah...that's those plain text files littered with
    strange punctuation characters, isn't it? Ah, yes...ASCII plain text that
    has, for once, a bit of "self-discipline" in its structural
    presentation...very "high technology"...they'll be inventing ".ini files"
    or something next...
    </sarcasm>
    </kidding>
    <signature>
    Beth :)
    </signature>
    </response>
     
    Beth, Mar 4, 2005
    #8
  9. Jure Sah

    Percival Guest

    On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 14:04:58 +0000, Randall Hyde wrote:

    > Again, the proof is in the final product.
    > It's a nice idea, but we shall see.
    > A better product would be something like ASMFlow that takes an
    > existing assembly program and produces the XML code that will
    > do what you want, without forcing its initial use on the programmer.


    Hmm, sorta reminds me of web and tangle and Knuth's "Literate Programming"
    idea. I never tried ASMFlow...

    Perhaps the xmlweb program will translate xml to some sort of graphic? And
    tangle will be the extractor of the assembly data so you have 3 versions
    of the source, 1 you wrote, 1 that is a picture painted by XML, and 1 is
    the one that will be compiled.

    Meh, literate programming in assembly... Lol. It could work, but I have
    yet to see it. (Other than abundance of comments, but thats not exactly
    the same)

    Percival
     
    Percival, Mar 4, 2005
    #9
  10. Jure Sah

    Evenbit Guest

    Jure Sah wrote:

    [lots of stuff about an XML-based ASM with graphical, networking, and
    machine-independence characteristics]

    >From my understanding, there are already tools that let you design

    software by drawing a flowchart (and here I thought flowcharts became
    obsolete along with punchcards) and generating the appropriate source
    for your chosen language. Aren't these called CASE tools? If you are
    designing for platform-indepedence and using CASE tools, then you are
    working at a high-abstraction level -- assembly language has no place
    in this environment. Assembly hugs the machine-dependent, low-level,
    non-abstraction style side of the programming scale so it would be a
    very poor choice for the output of a Flowchart Development Environment
    based on networking and platform-independence. Also, where on this
    Earth (outside of Redmond, Washington) are you going to find
    programmers who willingly severly criple their applications by making
    them dependent on code only available on the internet?

    Nathan.
     
    Evenbit, Mar 5, 2005
    #10
  11. Jure Sah

    Jure Sah Guest

    Beth wrote:
    > Graphs!!! Of course!! Graphs!!! Why didn't I think of that? Graphical
    > structural representations...thanks for the suggestion! ;)...


    Is that also sarcasm? I posted the idea of graphs months ago, my
    previous attempt was labeled the "MoonLink" program. This one will be
    finnished, just give me 2 hours of free time darnit. =P

    >>>PS. Looks kinda like that Unified model Beth was talking about :)

    >>
    >>Is that model world standard compilant?

    >
    > <response>
    > <kidding>
    > No, it doesn't suffer from being "ruined by committee" in being forced to
    > be rooted to 1960s technologies for "backwards compatibility" with ENIAC
    > and so forth ;)
    > <sarcasm>
    > XML, you say? Oh, yeah...that's those plain text files littered with
    > strange punctuation characters, isn't it? Ah, yes...ASCII plain text that
    > has, for once, a bit of "self-discipline" in its structural
    > presentation...very "high technology"...they'll be inventing ".ini files"
    > or something next...
    > </sarcasm>
    > </kidding>
    > <signature>
    > Beth :)
    > </signature>
    > </response>


    Well at least you asured that the average kid-with-Aspergers will be
    able to understand your, to them un-obvious kidding and sarcasm
    combination. And the same goes for just about any other XML-compilant
    computer program out there.

    BTW, all the software our company works with uses plain text to save
    settings and communicate... it's only logical to have it this way (even
    with those BASIC52 chips and whatever resident interpreters one might be
    using with tiny EPROMs). Having a world standard for that only begs to
    become compilant as soon as possible and I think all programmers should
    understand why that is good.

    I doubt you may speak of the same amount of experience as I do in this case.

    --
    Model: INFJ
    Primary function: Coprocessor
    Secondary function: Cluster commander

    "None felt feline, so I discounted copycat syndrome..."
    -- Ghost Song
     
    Jure Sah, Mar 7, 2005
    #11
  12. Jure Sah

    Jure Sah Guest

    Evenbit wrote:
    > From my understanding, there are already tools that let you design
    > software by drawing a flowchart (and here I thought flowcharts became
    > obsolete along with punchcards) and generating the appropriate source
    > for your chosen language. Aren't these called CASE tools? If you are
    > designing for platform-indepedence and using CASE tools, then you are
    > working at a high-abstraction level -- assembly language has no place
    > in this environment. Assembly hugs the machine-dependent, low-level,
    > non-abstraction style side of the programming scale so it would be a
    > very poor choice for the output of a Flowchart Development Environment
    > based on networking and platform-independence. Also, where on this
    > Earth (outside of Redmond, Washington) are you going to find
    > programmers who willingly severly criple their applications by making
    > them dependent on code only available on the internet?


    I suppose you haven't considered the purely electronic relevance of flow
    charts to Assembly language? It's the (C style) abstractions inbetween
    that make it inefficient or OS dependend, smart coding and/or
    object-orientation is irrelevant to that. My XML compiler does not bind
    with such abstractions unavoidably.

    And who said anything would be dependand on code only avaliable on the
    internet? I said it was merely an option, the internet is nothing but a
    big filesystem from the XML point of view and it allows for ease of
    sharing, that's all.

    --
    Model: INFJ
    Primary function: Coprocessor
    Secondary function: Cluster commander

    "None felt feline, so I discounted copycat syndrome..."
    -- Ghost Song
     
    Jure Sah, Mar 7, 2005
    #12
  13. Jure Sah

    Jure Sah Guest

    > Coming soon! Like... tommorow! Now I got to go to bed. =P

    Almost in a day. *g*

    Here it is:
    http://dustworld.dyndns.org/xml/XMLc.htm

    Enjoy.

    --
    Model: INFJ
    Primary function: Coprocessor
    Secondary function: Cluster commander

    "None felt feline, so I discounted copycat syndrome..."
    -- Ghost Song
     
    Jure Sah, Mar 9, 2005
    #13
  14. Jure Sah

    Beth Guest

    Jure Sah wrote:
    > Beth wrote:
    > > Graphs!!! Of course!! Graphs!!! Why didn't I think of that? Graphical
    > > structural representations...thanks for the suggestion! ;)...

    >
    > Is that also sarcasm?


    No; You quite seriously made me realise something I hadn't yet
    considered...my "mindset" was elsewhere that I'd not considered graphical
    representation...

    Though, this is well "beyond the scope" of LuxAsm so it won't have anything
    to do with that (more an "idea for the future"...a possible "plug-in" for
    LuxAsm, well into the future?), the idea of a "CASE tool"-like graphical
    representation for an extended kind of "visual programming"...that's a
    brilliant kind of idea...

    Not an ounce of sarcasm whatsoever...really...I _meant_ every single one of
    those over-used exclamation marks!!! ;)

    > I posted the idea of graphs months ago, my
    > previous attempt was labeled the "MoonLink" program. This one will be
    > finnished, just give me 2 hours of free time darnit. =P


    Ah, you've cross-posted this...did you post the "idea of graphs" here (in
    the assembly language group) or the XML group? If it was actually here,
    then, sorry, I must have missed that...or perhaps I did read it but, you
    know, wasn't in the right "thinking mode" to realise properly what I was
    reading (reading while half-asleep or something ;)...anyway,
    yeah...basically, you might have posted it months ago but, well, it was
    "news" to me personally, even if not for others who were paying attention
    where I wasn't :)...

    > >>>PS. Looks kinda like that Unified model Beth was talking about :)
    > >>
    > >>Is that model world standard compilant?

    > >
    > > <response>
    > > <kidding>
    > > No, it doesn't suffer from being "ruined by committee" in being forced

    to
    > > be rooted to 1960s technologies for "backwards compatibility" with

    ENIAC
    > > and so forth ;)
    > > <sarcasm>
    > > XML, you say? Oh, yeah...that's those plain text files littered with
    > > strange punctuation characters, isn't it? Ah, yes...ASCII plain text

    that
    > > has, for once, a bit of "self-discipline" in its structural
    > > presentation...very "high technology"...they'll be inventing ".ini

    files"
    > > or something next...
    > > </sarcasm>
    > > </kidding>
    > > <signature>
    > > Beth :)
    > > </signature>
    > > </response>

    >
    > Well at least you asured that the average kid-with-Aspergers will be
    > able to understand your, to them un-obvious kidding and sarcasm
    > combination.


    Glad to be of service! :)

    > And the same goes for just about any other XML-compilant
    > computer program out there.


    Really? Would you care to explain the purpose of "cascading style sheets",
    ECMAscript and such in the context of "XML-compliant" XHTML files being
    "universally perfect" in all regards?

    To require the physical separation of "content" from "presentation" by such
    means to allow encapsulated modular development would suggest a deficiency
    with regard to the facet that "XML-compliant" documents lack a means of
    distinction between source layout and physical layout, which mandates the
    physical separation of these two aspects in order to support a more
    practical development regime, where "content" and "presentation" are best
    dealt with individually...as a typical web-based regime would maintain
    "content" somewhat independently from the web-site presentational "look and
    feel" style...

    And ECMAScript would further suggest an XML deficiency in its lack of a
    coherent dynamic model, being solely a static data declaration
    facility...an aspect that would be highly relevent and challenging to your
    use of a static medium for representation of dynamic quantities...or, in
    other words, I'd Love to see how you'd deal with "self-modifying code" in
    your XML-based scheme...a bit of a "gotcha", eh?

    Although, of course, I'm merely an idiotic philastine with no appreciation
    of the obscure subtleties of your vast experiences in this field...so, I
    defer to your clear siccophantic over-enthusiasm to the latest "fad" and
    "fashion", as it is surely automatically the "authoritative source" by its
    implicit, "modern" popularity and the publication of profit-orientated
    texts that reflect such an attitude...

    [ Ah, if only "tags" weren't inconveniently forced to be "inline" then I
    could have added the "<sarcasm></sarcasm>" tags retro-actively to that last
    paragraph, eh? But I wouldn't want to be non-XML-compliant in your
    presence...oh, well...I can always apply a CSS template ("sarcasm: true;"
    :) to it later, I suppose ;) ]

    "Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ
    from the
    prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of
    forming such
    opinions."
    [ Albert Einstein ]

    "Reading, after a certain age, diverts the mind too much from its creative
    pursuits. Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little
    falls into lazy habits of thinking."
    [ Albert Einstein ]

    > BTW, all the software our company works with uses plain text to save
    > settings and communicate...


    Oh, well...so long as it's "popular", then it must be right...

    You know, like how the German people voted Hitler into power...or how
    people used to believe in a "flat Earth" and "sea monsters" very popularly
    too, so they must have been factually correct by sheer force of numbers of
    "true believers", yes? ;)...

    Why, indeed, Microsoft are clearly a superior software company or they'd
    never have become so "popular"...ignore the rumours that it's through
    monopolistic anti-competitive practices, "bundling" deals for pre-packaged
    unfair advantage and being found _GUILTY_ of bribery charges regards these
    exact practices in an American court of law...

    Just like McDonald's are clearly where they are for providing good quality,
    highly nutrious "health" meals with supreme levels of customer
    service...rather than, you know, just being the most "cheap and cheerful"
    on the market, scooping up spotty teenagers dirty cheap from unemployment
    queues at slave wages to shovel tasteless "soggy cardboard" French fries
    down our throats...

    Bart: I was wondering, how important is it to be popular?
    Homer: I'm glad you asked, son. Being popular is the most important thing
    in the world!
    [ From episode "the tell-tale head", the Simpsons ]

    > it's only logical to have it this way (even with those BASIC52 chips
    > and whatever resident interpreters one might be using with tiny EPROMs).


    Ah, that's a highly obscure, completely-irrelvent-to-the-context reference
    there...so, by extension, you _MUST_ be very intelligent and experienced!
    Now, _that_ is the popular-brand of "logical" for you ;)...

    What's "logical" about it? ASCII is a _BINARY_ format, in the end, just
    like any other...indeed, it's only strictly defined in 7-bits, so the 8th
    bit is an ambiguous mystery...the control characters aren't universally
    interpreted or even applicable to most contexts...Windows / DOS is
    character return line feed, UNIX is line feed, Apple Mac is character
    return...goodness knows what "line feed / character return" is supposed to
    mean on any of them!

    I mean, when you say "plain text", do you mean ASCII, ANSI, ISO, code page
    #8596, IBM's "box drawing" character set (of which there are two versions),
    Japanese double-byte character set, UTF-8, UTF-16, UTF-32, UCS-2, UCS-4,
    Shift-JIK, EBCDIC, etc., etc....?

    Yeah, what a great "world standard"! On the contrary, Jure, perhaps it's
    you who needs to be using the "<sarcasm></sarcasm>" tags here ;)...

    > Having a world standard for that only begs to
    > become compilant as soon as possible and I think all programmers should
    > understand why that is good.


    Oh, for frack's sake...it's an ASCII file with a few ugly, verbose "<tags>"
    inserted into it! It's NOT Edison inventing the lightbulb or
    anything...*sigh* snow to the bloody eskimoes, I tell you, it's just snow
    to the eskimoes...

    "World standard"? Yes, the _AMERICAN_ standard code for information
    interchange is such a useful "world standard" for the third of the entire
    human population in China who speak Mandarin Chinese...bloody hell, English
    _originates_ from this very isle and I can't even find our currency symbol
    there...

    Yes, indeed, it _NEEDS_ to "beg" to become a "world standard" because it's
    not going to get anywhere on "merit", that's for sure!

    "I think all programmers should understand why that is good"? Well, stick
    around a little longer...some programmers have seen _PLENTY_ of "useless
    fads" pass, like water round the U-bend...and comprehend when yet another
    useless fudging limited "standard" that'll still be haunting us three
    decades later is about to be formed...

    It's NOT a "technology"...and certainly not "new"...it's just a fracking
    ASCII file with some "self-discipline" applied to its structure! I think
    all programmers, for sure, will understand why that's hardly worth getting
    over-excited about...after all, what you think most source files for
    programs _are_ exactly?

    Wow! "Hierarchical .INI files"! Woo-hoo! Just what the software industry
    needs: Even more _REGRESSION_ back to the Stone Age!! Woo-hoo! They'll be
    "inventing" punch cards and "type in listings" all over again next!

    Most computer "standards" these days are solely successful at demonstrating
    how disorganised and disagreeable the industry is to do anything
    _properly_...not when there's "cheap and cheerful" awaiting around a
    corner!

    > I doubt you may speak of the same amount of experience as I do in this

    case.

    Yeah, of course...it's "logical" enough, right? You are "god" (you have a
    paper certificate to prove it! :) and I disagree with you...so, I'm clearly
    "ignorant"...stands to reason...you must forgive my smaller, puny female
    mind for its stupidity in believing it could form an independent
    opinion...and, yes, the "sarcasm" sign is being lifted high, so as to
    "assist" you in comprehending basic "world standard" human communication,
    "Einstein"...

    It would be "vulgar" to simply counter-list over 20 years of experience,
    immersed in the practice from childhood that I live and breath the subject,
    could entail...and would prove fruitless, as, of course, the underlying
    point is that _quality_ counts, not quantity, anyway...so I'll spare you
    the indignity...

    "An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor
    does truth become error because nobody sees it."
    [ Mahattma Gandhi ]


    Beth :)
     
    Beth, Mar 12, 2005
    #14
  15. Jure Sah

    Betov Guest

    "Beth" <> écrivait
    news:RaEYd.1923$:

    > Jure Sah wrote:
    >> Beth wrote:
    >> > Graphs!!!



    By the way (while talking of stupid toys... :))

    I seem to recall that the origin of the graphing
    Tool of IDA (was it IDA?...) was "stolen" from a
    GPLed ancestor, or something like this.

    Does someone know if this is true? If yes, where
    is that original GPLed Graph thingie Page located?
    (i am 75% sure i really saw it, in the past...).


    Betov.

    < http://rosasm.org/ >
     
    Betov, Mar 12, 2005
    #15
  16. Alex McDonald, Mar 13, 2005
    #16
  17. Jure Sah

    Evenbit Guest

    Jure Sah wrote:
    [snip]
    >
    > I suppose you haven't considered the purely electronic relevance of

    flow
    > charts to Assembly language?


    Actually, I have. Not actually flowcharts, but rather boolean algebra.
    Either grab an introductory digital electronics text from the local
    university library or take a look at Volume 2, Chapter 3 of the 32-bit
    version of Art of Assembly <http://www.artofasm.com> to discover a very
    Natural Language-style, very logical, programming language.

    [snip]
    > And who said anything would be dependand on code only avaliable on

    the
    > internet? I said it was merely an option, the internet is nothing but

    a
    > big filesystem from the XML point of view and it allows for ease of
    > sharing, that's all.


    A "big filesystem" that isn't always reliably connected. :)

    Nathan.
     
    Evenbit, Mar 13, 2005
    #17
  18. Jure Sah

    Evenbit Guest

    Evenbit wrote:
    > Actually, I have. Not actually flowcharts, but rather boolean

    algebra.
    > Either grab an introductory digital electronics text from the local
    > university library or take a look at Volume 2, Chapter 3 of the

    32-bit
    > version of Art of Assembly <http://www.artofasm.com> to discover a

    very
    > Natural Language-style, very logical, programming language.


    I forgot to mention something that _is_ closer to flowcharting...

    Ladder Logic and Programmable Logic Controllers.

    For an introduction to ladder logic:

    http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/electricCircuits/Digital/DIGI_6.html

    And ladder logic simulators:

    http://www.tri-plc.com/trilogi3.htm
    http://world.keyence.com/topics/plc_programming/logic.html

    Nathan.
     
    Evenbit, Mar 13, 2005
    #18
  19. Jure Sah

    Beth Guest

    Rene wrote:
    > Beth wrote:
    > > Jure Sah wrote:
    > >> Beth wrote:
    > >> > Graphs!!!

    >
    > By the way (while talking of stupid toys... :))
    >
    > I seem to recall that the origin of the graphing
    > Tool of IDA (was it IDA?...) was "stolen" from a
    > GPLed ancestor, or something like this.


    Ah, I think you'll find it was a fellow Frenchman - Descartes - who
    implicitly "invented" graphs when he came up with his "Cartesian
    co-ordinate system"...apparently, he wanted to track the path of a fly
    buzzing around in his tent, of all things...I don't believe he took out any
    "patents" on the concept ;)...

    Beth :)
     
    Beth, Mar 14, 2005
    #19
  20. Jure Sah

    Beth Guest

    Evenbit wrote:
    > Jure wrote:
    > > And who said anything would be dependand on code only avaliable on
    > > the internet? I said it was merely an option, the internet is
    > > nothing but a big filesystem from the XML point of view and it
    > > allows for ease of sharing, that's all.

    >
    > A "big filesystem" that isn't always reliably connected. :)


    <bad joke>

    "mount /dev/internet"

    Nope; It's not working...

    They obviously haven't written a "file system driver" for the internet on
    UNIX yet or something ;)...

    </bad joke>

    Beth :)
     
    Beth, Mar 14, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rocky Moore
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,744
    mikeb
    Jan 14, 2004
  2. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    334
    James Kanze
    Jul 11, 2008
  3. Phalanx
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    342
    Phalanx
    Dec 10, 2008
  4. Alf P. Steinbach
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    767
  5. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    130
    Michael Winter
    Feb 16, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page