Re: A83: TI8xBas
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A83: TI8xBas
> >I posted one message here before regarding TI8xBAS, but didn't get much
> >response -- I'm curious as to whether or not there is any interest in a
> >piece of software like this, or if I'm wasting my time here :) Let me
> >know.
>
> I'm personally opposed to programs like these. I think that if people
> want to make programs for ASM then they should learn the language. If
> they never get around to learning ASM then they're probably not
> interested enough to learn it. Also, these kinds of programs often get
> undesired results and they don't allow the programmer to fully explore
> all the possibilities of ASM.
I understand where you're coming from -- but I see it differently. Pure
ASM obviously has its advantages, but a higher level language has
advantages too. If you want to make something that doesn't need to be
extremely optimized, but don't want to spend lots of time doing it, you
could probably make it in a fraction of the time with a high level
compiler. And what is the problem with someone who doesn't know ASM
developing ASM programs for the calculator? It sounds like the same
jelousy I hear from C++ programmers talking about QuickBasic and Visual
Basic programmers -- they feel that if anyone is going to make a proggy
on the PC, they should use a "real man's" language -- But if I can make
the same thing in half the time in a simpler language, and don't mind
the drawbacks, then what's the problem there .. ? Lastly, it could help
people learn in steps -- instead of starting right out writing ASM code,
why not learn a simpler language first, understand some of the basics
first, and then move on .. ?
Do you see no value in high level compilers on the PC .. ? Should
Pascal, C++, Visual Basic, Delphi, and all the others be tossed out the
window because everyone should be required to know and use ASM?
Justin E. Schumacher
(Bugaboo @ IRC)
lew@shaysnet.com
References: