BASIC to ASM

Post by **JS Lemming** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:52 pm

You know what? I would like to make a lot of games and stuff for micro processor things like the TI83+ and VMU, but I'm faced with a difficult challenge. One, ASM is really hard and tedious. It makes me want to barf everytime I see it, the code at least. Theoreticly, Asm can be written to mimic higher language commands. So why doesn't someone make a BASIC like language/program that creates an Asm counterpart. Wouldn't it just be as easy as figuring out the asm equivilent of a basic command, then createing a file based off a "basic-asm" file and pasting the equivilent. Ahhh... the more I type this the more I doubt myself. I wish I could make something like that. Not really a compiler, but more of a breaker downer thingy.

Post by **Falco Girgis** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:46 pm

BASIC? That is a high ass level language. It makes Perl and Java look like ASM.

I don't know. I don't see how you could really do things like you would in a lower level language like that. Sure, instead of the hard to read commands you could make them more English (or at least I don't see why not), but you still aren't really going to make it any easier, at least if you did, you'd be losing efficiency or something.

You'd have to have some sort of super flaming bumhole optimized assembler or something.

I think. Not like I know what I'm talking about with ASM. I do believe that Tvspelsfreak is acquanted with a bit of (SH-4?) ASM.

Looks like somebody has caught the "I wanna code my VMU" fever.

I just caught it too now... thanks alot JSL...

quarn · Post by **quarn** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:33 pm

Actually there is a basic-ish language for the vmu available at http://www.vmuscript.8m.com/

Anyway, coding in asm is much more fun =)

Post by **Falco Girgis** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 4:22 pm

quarn wrote:Actually there is a basic-ish language for the vmu available at http://www.vmuscript.8m.com/

Anyway, coding in asm is much more fun =)

I had no clue.

Wow, thanks quarn. I actually plan to learn some form of asm some day, but for now it's just C/++.

Post by **JS Lemming** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 7:38 am

Quarn, asm is actually fun as you say. As a matter o'fact I usually reread old asm tutorials every now and then just for fun. I like working so close to the cpu. But I find that asm is just so.... obsolete compared to other languages that it discourages me.

quarn · Post by **quarn** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:54 am

Obsolete? You do realize that assembly is just pretty much the human-readable format for the machinecode, and that without the machinecode there can be no software programability of the CPU at all?

Human optimization in assembly still beats the compilers, both in size and speed.

http://www.256b.com

Post by **Falco Girgis** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 3:58 pm

Sorry, JSL, but it looks like ASM is here to stay.

Post by **JS Lemming** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 7:25 am

quarn wrote:Obsolete? You do realize that assembly is just pretty much the human-readable format for the machinecode, and that without the machinecode there can be no software programability of the CPU at all?

Human optimization in assembly still beats the compilers, both in size and speed.

http://www.256b.com

Yes, I do know that. And I didn't mean in optimization. I meant in developement speed and organization. Why write 10 lines of code when you can write 1 c++ line that does the same thing.

Post by **Falco Girgis** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 8:28 am

Because, it's faster, more efficient, and it's completely awesome.

quarn · Post by **quarn** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:11 pm

Saying that something is obsolete indicates that what is being obsolete is replaceable with something else. Assembly is not replacable as it is the base which everything else is built upon. You have to realize that you c++ compiler creates assembly code too...

However, I do agree that writing large pieces of code in assembly can be time consuming, but it is up to each of us to ourselves decide how we wish to spend our time. There are many reasons for writing assembly code compared to C++. Some of them are:

* Ability to create the fastest possible routine for the given platform
* Ability to create the smallest possible routine for the given platform
* Ability to use special opcodes (mmx, 3dnow, SIMD, etc) (which btw, can make the assembly version of the code both smaller and faster than the c++ version)
* Intellectual satisfaction knowing that you acomplished something better than the compiler
* It's 1337

But as stated before, it is time consuming, and if your goal with programming is to finish your program as soon as possible, you will do better with a more highlevel language.

Post by **JS Lemming** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:28 am

I know what asm is and capable of. Sorry for my slightly faulted use of the term "obsolete." Surely you knew what I meant.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:17 pm

My "slightly faulted" use of the Pythagorean Theorem lead to a whole flame wore. Now I see I was wrong. You should see that you are now. HOW WOULD WE KNOW WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT! YOU'RE USE OF OBSELETE WAS FAULTED, AND IT WAS YOUR FAULT!!

Go cut yourself now. :spin:

Post by **Falco Girgis** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:05 pm

If you're going to bash somebody, you might as well not soil yourself while you're at it. It's war not wore you moron.

Post by **JS Lemming** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:28 am

Mainly because I wasn't really wrong. Quarn simply interpretted it differently than me. If I were posting in some other forum, I would still call it obsolete. So Arce, go ahead and cut your whole friggen head off.

Post by **Falco Girgis** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 8:00 am

Umm... I don't like to carry on stupid disputes like this, but maybe you should look up obsolete. It was completely right of everybody to assume that's what you meant because it is what you said.

No, it wasn't faulted. If you meant something different than the way you used it, it was completely wrong. Your definition of the word is skewed.