OSDev.org

Are you really sure you aren't talking to a bot here?

Solar wrote:Are you really sure you aren't talking to a bot here?

I am not a bot.

I'm asking information for DavidCooper about machine language because I like the subject.

Solar wrote:Are you really sure you aren't talking to a bot here?

No, but it's displaying some good tricks if it is one, although it could be a bot guided in places by a human.

@DavidCooper,

Please, answer me, the subject that speaks about machine language is fun.

DavidCooper wrote: Tanenbaum says that "The machine language programmer must always work with the numerical values of the addresses", and while that is arguably wrong, you could consider my system to be a partial assembler: my indexes hold the names of variables and routines, so when I call a routine, I type in the name of the routine rather than the jump distance to it, and when I want to load a value from or to a variable, I type in the name of the variable rather than its address. For almost everything else though, I use machine code numbers directly.

@DavidCooper,

You said that is arguably wrong the following affirmation of Andrew Tanenbaum:

"The machine language programmer must always work with the numerical values of the addresses".

Why Andrew Tanenbaum says that the machine language programmer must always work with the numerical values of the addresses?

@manhobby

If you aren't a bot stuck in a rut, something must be being lost in translation - there shouldn't be any need to go round and round in circles. What is your native language?

DavidCooper wrote:What is your native language?

@DavidCooper,

Brazilian Portuguese.

DavidCooper wrote:@manhobby

If you aren't a bot stuck in a rut, something must be being lost in translation - there shouldn't be any need to go round and round in circles.

@DavidCooper,

You did not answer a question about a statement of Andrew Tanenbaum.

This is my last question about a statement of Andrew Tanenbaum that talks about machine language:

DavidCooper wrote:
Tanenbaum says that "The machine language programmer must always work with the numerical values of the addresses", and while that is arguably wrong, you could consider my system to be a partial assembler: my indexes hold the names of variables and routines, so when I call a routine, I type in the name of the routine rather than the jump distance to it, and when I want to load a value from or to a variable, I type in the name of the variable rather than its address. For almost everything else though, I use machine code numbers directly.

@DavidCooper,

You said that is arguably wrong the following affirmation of Andrew Tanenbaum:

"The machine language programmer must always work with the numerical values of the addresses".

Why Andrew Tanenbaum says that the machine language programmer must always work with the numerical values of the addresses?

I'm going say that the question itself betrays a confusion of ideas. In machine code, all you have are numeric values (or, to be very precise, electrical impulses which are conventionally interpreted as numeric values). Regarding addressing, in machine code, the addresses of memory locations are represented as either linear, absolute numeric addresses - 0000:0000, 0000:0001, etc. - or as offsets from the present location - +08, -000A, etc.

These values have to be computed by hand when writing machine code, or at the very least, need to be inserted by hand once they'v been computed. Even more than the difficulty of memorizing the instruction codes, it is this need to get all of these addresses and offsets correct, without fail, that makes machine code programming difficult.

In a conventional assembly language, the language provides tools such as labels which allow the assembler to compute these values for you. In @DavidCooper's toolchain, he developed a different solution, but the basic idea - that the address computations can be handed off to the computer itself - remains the primary solution to this problem.

I hope this makes more sense now, but I have a feeling you will have a lot more questions for us on this.

Interesting talk. It's time for some visual accompaniment. I can't chose between this:

and this:

Schol-R-LEA wrote:I'm going say that the question itself betrays a confusion of ideas.

@Schol-R-LEA

I asked the question because the DavidCooper said that is arguably wrong the following affirmation of Andrew Tanenbaum:

"The machine language programmer must always work with the numerical values of the addresses".

DavidCooper wrote: Tanenbaum says that "The machine language programmer must always work with the numerical values of the addresses", and while that is arguably wrong, you could consider my system to be a partial assembler: my indexes hold the names of variables and routines, so when I call a routine, I type in the name of the routine rather than the jump distance to it, and when I want to load a value from or to a variable, I type in the name of the variable rather than its address. For almost everything else though, I use machine code numbers directly.

manhobby wrote:Why Andrew Tanenbaum says that the machine language programmer must always work with the numerical values of the addresses?

Schol-R-LEA wrote: I hope this makes more sense now,

@Schol-R-LEA

The DavidCooper use pure machine code programming or he use assembler and machine language?

Schol-R-LEA wrote: but I have a feeling you will have a lot more questions for us on this.

@Schol-R-LEA

I have only more one question for you to end the topic.

manhobby wrote:You did not answer a question about a statement of Andrew Tanenbaum.

Sua pergunta já foi respondida duas vezes; uma vez por mim e a outra por StudlyCaps. Eu disse: "Porque ele poderia afirmar que eu não estou fazendo programação pura de código de máquina porque eu automatizei essa parte do processo."

You said that is arguably wrong the following affirmation of Andrew Tanenbaum:

"The machine language programmer must always work with the numerical values of the addresses".

Why Andrew Tanenbaum says that the machine language programmer must always work with the numerical values of the addresses?

Ele fez uma suposição de que um programador de código de máquina deveria escrever os endereços e distâncias de salto diretamente, em vez de usar qualquer sistema para automatizar essa parte do processo. Indiscutivelmente, isso é correto se você está escrevendo 100% em código de máquina, mas também é indiscutivelmente errado porque endereços e distâncias de salto não são instruções.

DavidCooper wrote:

manhobby wrote:You did not answer a question about a statement of Andrew Tanenbaum.

Sua pergunta já foi respondida duas vezes; uma vez por mim e a outra por StudlyCaps. Eu disse: "Porque ele poderia afirmar que eu não estou fazendo programação pura de código de máquina porque eu automatizei essa parte do processo."

You said that is arguably wrong the following affirmation of Andrew Tanenbaum:

"The machine language programmer must always work with the numerical values of the addresses".

Why Andrew Tanenbaum says that the machine language programmer must always work with the numerical values of the addresses?

Ele fez uma suposição de que um programador de código de máquina deveria escrever os endereços e distâncias de salto diretamente, em vez de usar qualquer sistema para automatizar essa parte do processo. Indiscutivelmente, isso é correto se você está escrevendo 100% em código de máquina, mas também é indiscutivelmente errado porque endereços e distâncias de salto não são instruções.

@DavidCooper,

Please write your answer also in English to share the answer to those that do not understand Brazilian Portuguese.

Não é necessário. Previous explanations are clear. It should also be clear to those with experience in writting in assembly, writing program loaders in their OSes and debugging code in disassembly mode. If you spent some (more?) time learning to program, you’d not be asking these questions.

@DavidCooper,

The Schol-R-LEA said:

Schol-R-LEA wrote:
I have to second the question which Zaval, and several others, have already asked: what are you trying to accomplish by asking these questions? We've already told you that this is a dead end with regards to professional programming. If you want to learn machine code or assembly language programming out of curiosity or as a hobby, go ahead and do it (Hell, there are probably some here who would help you with that, and there several more specialized message boards where they certainly would), but there is no reason for you to be belaboring this if you intent is to find work.

@DavidCooper, I want to learn machine code as a hobby.

Please, answer me the my following questions about machine language:

Who here who would help me with that?

Which are several more specialized message boards where they certainly would?

manhobby wrote:Which are several more specialized message boards where they certainly would?

To name a few:

• comp.lang.asm.x86
• alt.lang.asm
• board.flatassembler.net
• forum.nasm.us

alexfru wrote:

manhobby wrote:Which are several more specialized message boards where they certainly would?

To name a few:

• comp.lang.asm.x86
• alt.lang.asm
• board.flatassembler.net
• forum.nasm.us

@alexfru,

I asked about machine language, I did not ask about Assembly, please read my questions again:

manhobby wrote:@DavidCooper,

The Schol-R-LEA said:

Schol-R-LEA wrote:
I have to second the question which Zaval, and several others, have already asked: what are you trying to accomplish by asking these questions? We've already told you that this is a dead end with regards to professional programming. If you want to learn machine code or assembly language programming out of curiosity or as a hobby, go ahead and do it (Hell, there are probably some here who would help you with that, and there several more specialized message boards where they certainly would), but there is no reason for you to be belaboring this if you intent is to find work.

@DavidCooper, I want to learn machine code as a hobby.

Please, answer me the my following questions about machine language:

Who here who would help me with that?

Which are several more specialized message boards where they certainly would?