Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Search:  
Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

FASM's license (Announce)

posted by ecm Homepage E-mail, Düsseldorf, Germany, 14.09.2010, 15:50

> [...] did things the hard way for one example by writing an ELF
> executable from scratch!
Where's the problem? I'm not saying linkers ain't useful, but there are definitively cases for which (A) you don't need them or for which (B) you can't use them, usually because you require a specific executable format and data arrangement that you can't get the linker to do reliably/at all.

> OCTASM is just different syntax, esp. multiple instructions on one line.
All right, why not make Assembly language harder to understand. Come on. Most of the lines in my code have a comment anyway, why would I want to put multiple instructions on one line? It doesn't strike me as something I would want to encourage either.

> Of course, he at first GPL'd the OS,
> then closed it, opened it, closed it again, and now it's still closed (but
> barely updated?).
Ah, that sucks.

> > > Face it, old closed source
> > > 16-bit OBJ libs are rare these days,
> >
> > True, but there are still interesting programs around that are
> only
> > available as object.
>
> Not Linux compatible? OBSOLETE! :lol:
 What??? Why would you want to use Loonix!! It's made of BLOAT :crying: :clap:

> The point is that they can do "everything" (more or less) in 32-bit, so
> they don't care about 16-bit at all. What I find funny is that they hailed
> 32-bit so heavily, refused to even think about anything else, then 64-bit
> came and knocked them on their heads. Now all the arguments about "too much
> maintenance" are moot. If they don't support 64-bit, they aren't "kewl", so
> they've all rushed to that, even if most computers still have less than 4
> GB. Even worse, it gives them an excuse to hate 16-bit even more.
I think their "too much maintenance" was specifically aimed at the constraints on 16-bit programming (especially in RM/V86), which weren't re-introduced with AMD64. (In fact, I hear the calling conventions and code generation became simpler because there are more registers.) Specifying this reason for why you don't want to support multiple architectures is non-sense unless you're writing gcc or libc. All the other stuff is written in HLLs and only needs to be portable enough, which it should be anyway.

---
l

Post reply
 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
22649 Postings in 2111 Threads, 402 registered users, 900 users online (1 registered, 899 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum