He doesn't seem to be so smart when it comes to dll's or C#. No one on this forum is getting anything from me again. Ever. Feel free to blame kllrnohj.
harold wrote:
If you're using a DLL, you are splitting your code over 2 separate projects, you get a nice free DLL hell problem, you run the risk of the dll getting separated from the main program, and it won't even do what dll's are supposed to do - save space (which does work for most dlls that ship with windows, and also those that ship with .NET)
*sigh*
No, just... no. Again, nothing wrong with DLLs. You seem to have heard the phrase "DLL hell", took it as absolute truth, and *completely* missed what it actually meant.
Quote:
And no one cares about mono. No one is using linux and even less people are using mono. It's not worth supporting an entirely different platform if no one uses it (and I'm sure you know that not everything by far works on mono - try running a program that uses XNA in it ie almost every .NET game)
"excluding the two hugest platforms using Linux, Linux's marketshare is tiny" - uh... no shit. Linux dominates in the server world, and it owns the embedded world - including cell phones.
EDIT: Oh, and my comment was far from limited to mono. .NET officially runs on architectures that are not x86/x64, such as Windows Mobile, Windows Phone 7, Zune, XBox 360, and soon Windows 8. Also, knowing whether you are on x86 or x64 when writing assembly is pretty darn important, so those are really two different platforms as well.
Quote:
Here's an other advantage demonstrated:
Code:
Templating. This example isn't very good because not using a template here is also perfectly acceptable, but it isn't always.
Code:
asm = new SharpAsm.Asm(string.Format(@"
; ecx = value to validate
mov edx,ecx
mov r8d,ecx
shr edx,1
shl r8d,1
xor edx,ecx
xor r8d,ecx
not edx
not r8d
and edx,0x{0:X}
and r8d,0x{1:X}
and edx,r8d
mov edx,0x{2:X}
jnz return
.align 16
loop:
bsf eax,ecx
jz return
btr ecx,eax
add edx,-1
jnz loop
test ecx,ecx
setz eax
ret
.align 16
return:
xor eax,eax
ret
", mask0, mask1, size / 2));Templating. This example isn't very good because not using a template here is also perfectly acceptable, but it isn't always.
Ewwww....
You want fast, highly optimized code - so you build it on the fly using C#'s string templating (not fast), THEN assemble it (not fast), and THEN finally execute it? How is that a good thing?
Quote:
You could use a dll for this, and then what? What did you gain? The ability to a at someone's library that I put out here because I'm being nice? Hm. I'll just keep everything private like I used to do.
If you think your code is private, you couldn't be more wrong. Compared to a compiled DLL, .NET apps are *insanely* easy to decompile - especially since you get perfectly readable code spit out on the first pass. A DLL would be far superior in that example, especially since it would be much faster due to much less overhead than your "templating assembly".
harold wrote:
He doesn't seem to be so smart when it comes to dll's or C#.
That's because your ignorance has blinded you to the truth. You think you know things when in reality you don't.
harold wrote:
No one on this forum is getting anything from me again. Ever. Feel free to blame kllrnohj.
Awww, poor baby. You tried to talk the talk but just couldn't handle getting crushed. Just remember as you pout in a corner, YOU called ME out. I actually thought it was a cool hack.
harold wrote:
He doesn't seem to be so smart when it comes to dll's or C#. No one on this forum is getting anything from me again. Ever. Feel free to blame kllrnohj.
You're going to let one guy change your view on a whole forums website? While he was acting like a total dick, I can tell he obviously knows a lot about this subject. Like he said, he though it was a cool hack, but he was pointing out some flaws that make it somewhat impractical to use. And reading his responses, I agree with his points, they are highly valid. I don't think he was picking on your project -- he was picking on the impracticality of the whole situation.
If you still want to leave us, go ahead. I wish you wouldn't, you're a welcome addition to the community, so I suggest you think your decision over after you take a chill lingo.
Harold, you should not leave nor stop contributing to the forums. A lot of people here are great people and will be willing to help you or check out your projects.
As for kllrnohj he's usually like that, but I think there's also the fact he's extremly opinionated about softwares and languages, so combined with his occasional bluntness can lead to such replies from him. However, if you don't like him, it doesn't mean the entire Cemetech is like him. Other people might point out mistakes you made in a nicer way, but in the end it's the same mistake that might be pointed out. You can simply disregard all his posts if you don't like them. If that doesn't work, you could always talk to Kerm or another moderator about your concerns, and if that still doesn't work for you, then there are other calc forum alternatives, but I think that last solution should be in last resort because I don't think people here wants you to leave.
On the topic of DLL files, personally the only problem I have with DLL dependencies is when I download something and it cries about missing DLL files. However that seems rare nowadays on my computer. On a coding point I cannot speak my mind about that, though, because I have no experience with that.
As for kllrnohj he's usually like that, but I think there's also the fact he's extremly opinionated about softwares and languages, so combined with his occasional bluntness can lead to such replies from him. However, if you don't like him, it doesn't mean the entire Cemetech is like him. Other people might point out mistakes you made in a nicer way, but in the end it's the same mistake that might be pointed out. You can simply disregard all his posts if you don't like them. If that doesn't work, you could always talk to Kerm or another moderator about your concerns, and if that still doesn't work for you, then there are other calc forum alternatives, but I think that last solution should be in last resort because I don't think people here wants you to leave.
On the topic of DLL files, personally the only problem I have with DLL dependencies is when I download something and it cries about missing DLL files. However that seems rare nowadays on my computer. On a coding point I cannot speak my mind about that, though, because I have no experience with that.
As I said in my PM to you, harold, Kllrnohj does not represent the views of Cemetech as a whole, and although we put up with him because he's generally very knowledgeable, his arrogance (justified or not) has certainly alienated more than one member from him over the years. I urge you not to fall into the fallacy of synechdote: equating one member of a community with the whole community. Like any community, Cemetech is the sum of its parts, not any single members attitudes, opinions, or knowledge.
Butthurt, are you kidding me? It's a calculated move to make him seem like more of a d1ck.
Also, mister d1ck, that code is obviously supposed to be called from an inner loop - not created an assembled over and over again in the inner loop. But I guess you're just too arrogant to see that anyone but you could ever be right.
Also, mister d1ck, that code is obviously supposed to be called from an inner loop - not created an assembled over and over again in the inner loop. But I guess you're just too arrogant to see that anyone but you could ever be right.
harold wrote:
Butthurt, are you kidding me? It's a calculated move to make him seem like more of a d1ck.
Also, mister d1ck, that code is obviously supposed to be called from an inner loop - not created an assembled over and over again in the inner loop. But I guess you're just too arrogant to see that anyone but you could ever be right.
Did you take a look at DJ_O, Ashbad, and my own posts here, harold? Hopefully they'll help you regard the discussion as more of a verbal jousting with Kllrnohj than a personal attack, as I doubt that's his intent; I'd be more than happy to show you plenty of threads where he's equally insulted my intelligence and ideas and skills in response to items I've posted. Also, mister d1ck, that code is obviously supposed to be called from an inner loop - not created an assembled over and over again in the inner loop. But I guess you're just too arrogant to see that anyone but you could ever be right.
harold wrote:
Butthurt, are you kidding me? It's a calculated move to make him seem like more of a d1ck.
And how is that going? Not very well I suspect, as nobody seems to have changed their opinion of me.
Quote:
Also, mister d1ck, that code is obviously supposed to be called from an inner loop - not created an assembled over and over again in the inner loop.
Uh, what? How does that in any way negate what I said? If you want templating for your assembly, then you shouldn't be using assembly as at that point performance clearly no longer matters to you.
Quote:
But I guess you're just too arrogant to see that anyone but you could ever be right.
In this case I really am just right. I may be arrogant, but I'm still not wrong.
KermMartian wrote:
Did you take a look at DJ_O, Ashbad, and my own posts here, harold? Hopefully they'll help you regard the discussion as more of a verbal jousting with Kllrnohj than a personal attack, as I doubt that's his intent; I'd be more than happy to show you plenty of threads where he's equally insulted my intelligence and ideas and skills in response to items I've posted.
Pretty much - hence my avatar
Kllrnohj wrote:
Uh, what? How does that in any way negate what I said? If you want templating for your assembly, then you shouldn't be using assembly as at that point performance clearly no longer matters to you.
That does not even make sense.
This means that you are also of the opinion that using CPUID at the beginning of your program and then changing a function pointer to one of several alternatives based on the result, clearly means performance no longer matters to you.
But guess what, it done exactly because the performance does matter to .. not you I guess, but whoever uses the technique. Intels C compiler does that by default, right?
Well then you must be less intelligent than my guinea pigs. And let me tell you, they can't even always find their food.
Trading off some extra time in initialization to get a faster inner loop is not "performance clearly no longer matters to you".
Since this topic has degenerated to name calling, I'm locking this topic until people can discuss this particular topic without telling each other how dumb the other is.
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Advertisement