| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1409 |
Assembler preferences.
Two questions:
- what's everyone using these days?
- on large productions, do groups tend to enforce a single assembler for the entire project, or is the code base a bit heterogenous?
I'd like to keep this discussion purely focussed on assemblers; please leave code generators, loader toolchains etc for that other thread.
(as for me, I'm still using xa65 for most projects) |
|
... 204 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 954 |
For what it's worth now that this thread is starting to get emotionally deranged: 64tass. :) |
| |
tlr
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 1790 |
dasm
Lot's of quirks but it works for me. |
| |
Angel of Death
Registered: Apr 2008
Posts: 211 |
If I may add to the conversation...
I seem to be the only one here that uses both and I found out that in the end it doesn't really matter which compiler/assembler you use
and that the speed at which it does it's job is dependent on how much includes, scripts, conditional compiles etc. are used.
However, not doing any programming in a 'higher language', the modern syntax and structure of kickass does look a bit alien to me
as my brain is, more or less, trained to read machine/assembly code.
There are one click solutions and enviroments for both and having the additional JAVA layer doesn't make it, necessarily, more cumbersome on modern systems.
But it does make it cross-platform.
But then again, that doesn't have anything to do with the difference between using a compiler with advanced scripting-options or an assembler that doesn't.
If you consider programming as building something it shouldn't really matter if you use a hammer and chisel
(or hammer and nails, for that matter) or a 3d printer.
Tools are tools, skills are skills... |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2980 |
Quoting SlammerBut it seem to me that Krill was attacking Wisdom for aswering a question that was asked directly to him and with the style of retoric i have seen you use many times. I wasn't intending to attack anyone. My point was just this: While the scripting abilities are all fine and dandy, they limit you in what you can do, until using arbitrary external tools to generate data (as it's supposed to be (TM)).
I myself use many different domain-specific scripting languages and other tools to generate data to be included with C-64 binary blobs. I guess a good example is the GNU octave (Matlab) script i used in the build process of Artefacts to pack a few tables to polynomials, which is a kind of lossy compression, and uses polynomial fitting (of course) to find the coefficients. This is a few lines in that language, as it is made for that kind of job. Conversely, it would probably be a bad idea to do this in most/all general-purpose languages.
Other examples would be graphics and audio conversion, lossless compression, etc.
Now, in the end, nothing keeps anyone from using the built-in scripting AND external data generators. But i myself have never missed the lack of the former in other assemblers (as long as they come with a mature macro engine) and keep using whatever external tool does the job.
And with regard to the hammer/nails metaphor: I have seen quite a few posts in here which were about solving some specific problem in the built-in scripting language. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
what krill said. first and foremost, the assembler should do assembler things - and it should do it well. IMHO kickass just fails flat on a few things there (which you can surely work around, but i'd rather not). the scripting stuff is all nice and fluffy, but it doesnt solve anything for me. |
| |
Slammer
Registered: Feb 2004
Posts: 416 |
Krill: Good to hear your elaboration. It raises the discussion from the mud-slinging level to something constructive.
And you are actually stating an important point. Nothing prevents you from using the script together with higher level languages, just like nothing prevents you from doing something in C++ when you are doing calculations in Math-lab. You can also benefit from stuff like pseudocomands or access to the internal labels in executed macros without using the script language at all.
Now I'am sure there are other equally cool benefits in the assembler you use, why dont you state these instead of assuming people are gonna use the script language in a bad way. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
the linker in ca65 toolchain - for bigger projects (not necessarily demo coding) being able to have proper libraries and link stuff to arbitrary locations in a memory layout defined in a linker config is unbeatable. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5094 |
nothing wrong with kickass itself, its brilliant imho. as told what raises eyebrows is when people overuse it :) |
| |
Slammer
Registered: Feb 2004
Posts: 416 |
Linking and libraries is an interesting topic. Could you explain the benefits of the linker over for example preprocessor includes like in C/C++? I don't know the ca65 linker, are there any disadvantages? Im thinking, when are labels getting their values and is it limiting the memorymanagement in any way?
Edit: Before you take this the wrong way. I'm actually looking into these things right now and want your opinion |
| |
encore
Registered: Aug 2010
Posts: 67 |
for what it's worth: 64tass |
| Previous - 1 | ... | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | ... | 22 - Next |
