Post by Kadaitcha Manthou knotty pated fool, thou whoreson obscene greasy tallow catch.
Thou hag of hell. Whose horrible image doth unfix my hair and make
Post by Kadaitcha ManDon't lose sight of the fact that you do believe you're a
programmer.
Hey<BITCHSLAP>
Horses it eat. And there is also the small matter of you not having
replied to the post below yet. Attend to it, official net coward.
And make sure you answer all of the question you keep snipping and
ignoring, net coward.
Post by Kadaitcha ManSecondly, Dustfart, and you've been told this time and time again,
and still it hasn't sunken in to that massive slab of
steel-reinforced concrete you like to call a head; It is neither
your decision nor mine to determine the accuracy or otherwise of
the accusations of consummate fuckwittery made against you.
Your readers will decide. Not you. Not me.
Monkey see, monkey do.
So you are a monkey? Can I train you to do more tricks then?
Post by Kadaitcha ManDustfart, if the same principle were applied to you and all your
usenet posts, you'd be the world's loneliest poster. Hell, even
drive-by spammers would get more acknowledgement of their
existence.
Your primary existance on usenet is alt.usenet.kooks, who are you to
make statements with regard to anyone else?
Post by Kadaitcha ManYou incompetent fuckhead. Code is what you write; or in your case,
scribble. Instructions are what compilers produce.
You somehow think symantics is going to save you now?
Dustfart, programming is a precise science, an art even. If you
cannot line up your ducks to support your scurrilous claim to be a
programmer then that is entirely your problem.
The fact remains, no programmer that I have ever worked with or known
since I started in the computer industry in 1976 has ever, read that
again, no programmer that I have ever worked with or known since I
started in the computer industry in 1976, and actively work in to
this very day, has ever, ever, not even once, 1. Confused input with
output, 2. Confused code with instructions, 3. Confused assembly
mnemonics with binary data. Yet there you are, claiming to be a 1337
uberprogrammer of great repute and awesome fame, and in post after
post after post you persistently do all three and all at fucking
once.
Semantics has nothing to do with you being a worthless,
over-inflated bag of gas, Dusftart.
Post by Kadaitcha ManYour assembler<BITCHSLAP>
Assembly, Dustfart. Assembly. I, being highly skilled in
programming, write Assembly. You, being the dribbling fuckwit that
you are are the one who dabbles about with "assembler".
If you think not being able to get an asic syntax correct is a
demonstration of highly skilled programming, I have some nice ocean
front property in arizona I'd like to sell you.
That straw-man was burnt alive some time ago, Dustfart. You cannot
ressurect it...
Quick critique <> correction.
Post by Kadaitcha ManOh, someone else wrote a program that displays "Hello, FuckNuts
Dusfart!"?
Are you intentionally evading the point? Are we going to get so
nitpicky that were going to bitch if asicc strings are different?
Geeze..
Again, you context snipped so I'll take that your question as being
rhetorical, albeit inadvertant on your part.
Post by Kadaitcha Man<snippage of stuff you ignored and did not reply to, yet again>
That seems to be something we're both guilty of. Lets face it, some
things you comment on aren't worth a response.
Don't try and drag me into your quagmire, Dustfart. It won't work.
Now, please point to one solitary example of ignoring and not
replying. Thank you.
Post by Kadaitcha ManBecause I've disassembled the resulting binary files created with
the language. Asic isn't p-code nor is it interpreted.
Well, fuck me dead, Dustfart. You've made a major discovery there.
Do you
You don't know the cracking scene either? It's a rhetorical
question. If you had, you'd already know i'm not bad at reverse
engineering. Oh wait, doh, I am supporting a malware removal tool,
of course I can reverse engineer... Silly me.
<pours petrol on yet another Dustfart-created straw-man>
<strikes match>
<FOOF!>
Post by Kadaitcha Mansuppose it could be possible that if you disassembled every
natively compiled executable ever compiled by every native
complier available that you'd identify a correlation so undeniable
that you could state with some
I've done alot of diassemblies from HLL compilers, and yes, many of
them produce p-code. Asic doesn't.
<pours petrol on yet another Dustfart-created straw-man>
<strikes match>
<FOOF!>
I'm getting bored with defending the reasons I write software
Consistent failure will do that, Dustin.
in asic
tho... It reminds me of the av/vx wars of yesteryear. Only, they
understood eventually.
<pours petrol on yet another Dustfart-created straw-man>
<strikes match>
<FOOF!>
Post by Kadaitcha Mancertainty that all native compilers produce binary files that are
not interpreted and are not p-code?
What are you calling a native compiler in this aspect?
Results 1 - 100 of about 1,150,000 English pages for native compiler.
(0.26 seconds)
Pardon me for a moment please...
1. Confuses Assembly with "assembler" [sic]
2. Confuses code with instructions
3. Confuses input with output
4. Maintians that ASIC BASIC is close to "assembler" [sic]
5. Asserts that a$=string$(24,"+-") does something in ASIC BASIC
that it does not do...
6. Tacitly admits to having less foresight than a squirrel
7. Uses shifty dodging, weaving and ducking to disguise his
complete lack of all capability and sense.
[scribbles...]
8. Has no idea what native compiler means.
Post by Kadaitcha ManThe alert reader will note that not only have you conflated code
with instructions, you just tried to conflate reverse-engineered
instructions represented by assembly mnemonics into ASIC BASIC.
The alert reader already knows I'm just feeding trolls at this
point. I'm basically screwing off killing a little bit of time, and
smashing on you here in usenet. But at the end of the day, I know
that you don't personally give a rats ass what I say anymore than I
do about what you say. It's for the audience that we even bother
trading shots.
<pours petrol on yet another Dustfart-created straw-man>
<strikes match>
<FOOF!>
One of us has to get the last word in...
Post by Kadaitcha ManK-man, You were not even able to properly comment on very simple
code, of course you would try the "well, you have a strawman"
defense. Face it, I've beaten you. You jumped before you looked.
Your delusional opinion counts for what, exactly, Dustfart?
Admission of the fact accepted.
I already told you. That straw-man was set alight a long time ago.
You cannot now try to ressurect it. I can understand you fooling
yourself into believeing you can get away with it once in a post,
but twice? Pffft.
Quick critique <> correction.
The question stands. Answer it.
Your delusional opinion counts for what, exactly, Dustfart?
Post by Kadaitcha ManWell then, you're just going to have to force yourself to show,
step by woefully laborious step, how it is that this code
indicates just "how close asic really is to assembler [sic]"...
you already know what i meant by the statement, we're simply going
round and round now.
Post by Kadaitcha ManThat would be assembler [sic] code put there by the compiler,
yes? You know, "code" that you did not actually write. Oh, and
the completely straw-man
Well, short of writing everything in machine language, you can't
actually claim anybody has authored anything original, and even
then....
Woah! Back up there a moment, retard...
Backing up...
Post by Kadaitcha ManWho made any claim even remotely resembling "writing everything in
machine language, you can't actually claim anybody has authored
anything original"?
Do you have trouble reading what you wrote or something?
The question stands, like all rest of the unanswered questions. Answer it.
Who made any claim even remotely resembling "writing everything in
machine language, you can't actually claim anybody has authored
anything original"?
Post by Kadaitcha ManThat would be assembler [sic] code put there by the compiler,
yes? You know, "code" that you did not actually write.
Your breaking little twigs at this point, but I'll bite. You made
the statement that the compiler makes code I didn't write, I
responded by saying unless you do everything by hand in pure
machine language, your statement claims nobody's code is their own,
it's the work of the programmers who wrote the compiler. We seem to
have a chicken and egg problem if that's the case.
There is no chicken and egg, Dustfart. All there is is yet another
one of your immolated straw-men lying in a forlorn pile of carbon
giving off smoke.
The record clearly shows that you set out from the claim of 'asic is
like assembler' and then proceeded to take the input of ASIC BASIC
and fool yourself into believing that the compiled output somehow
proved your utterly fuckwitted position that a brick is like a nerf
ball.
I have news for you, Dustfart. You can try that pathetic Svengali
card trick of yours on any native compiler, not just ASIC BASIC, and
still draw the same fuckwitted and completely wrong conclusion. So,
to extrapolate the demented idiocy of your fuckwitted notions to
their logical conclusion...
'asic is like assembler'
'APL is like assembler'
'Forth is like assembler'
'Algol is like assembler'
'C is like assembler'
'Java is like assembler'
'Pascal is like assembler'
'FORTRAN is like assembler'
'PL/1 is like assembler'
'asic is like assembler'
'Smalltalk is like assembler'
'Postscript is like assembler'
So, fucktard, why doesn't everyone just use "assembler" [sic]?
Post by Kadaitcha ManThe point under discussion here, which must have gone right through
The ASIC BASIC code is very close to Assembly code.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You are beating a dead horse dude.
Yeah, you.
The resulting binary is close to what you would have gotten in
assembly<BITCHSLAP>
<pours petrol on yet another Dustfart-created straw-man>
<strikes match>
<FOOF!>
, is what I meant,
I repeat: Programming is a precise science.
and it's what you knew I meant.
Salve your battered conscience in whatever manner you like,
Dustfart, I will merely point to the mounting pile of evidence to
your delusional state and ask you to cough up some proof to support
your claim that a highly skilled software developer might actually
be able to make sense out of the discombobulated balderdash you toss
about.
Now, can you find something that's
actually worth trading shots over?
Not so fast, dustfart. I'm not letting you off until I see coffin
maggots emerge from your decrepit corpse.
You have claimed to be a programmer of great repute and fame and you
persist in claiming to be a programmer when the truth is you are
nothing of the sort. There are unanswered questions that you must
attend to. get to them. All of them.
Post by Kadaitcha ManThat is a paraphrase of your claim. It has already been established
that you do not know the difference between input and ouput, and
that you do not know the difference between code and instructions.
And it has already been
It's a desperate attempt to save face on your part, actually.
Post by Kadaitcha Manestablished that, following on from your failure to understand the
difference between code and instructions, that you believe machine
instructions are code.
Assembly languages use mnemonic codes to refer to machine code
instructions. Such a more readable rendition of the machine language
is called an assembly language and consists of both numbers and
simple words whereas machine code is composed only of numbers,
usually represented in either binary or hexadecimal.
For example, on the Zilog Z80 processor, the machine code 00000101
causes the CPU to decrement the B processor register. In assembly
language this would be written as DEC B.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_code
ALL HAIL TEH WIKI!!!, eh, Dustfart. So, I guess that settles it
then, eh. You can post quotes from the wiki therefore you are a
programmer of great fame and exceeding repute. FNAR! You blithering
fuckstick; you've shot yourself in the head, yet again...
Still want to debate over symantics? Or will you try to spin what
you said?
<pours petrol on yet another Dustfart-created straw-man>
<strikes match>
<FOOF!>
Read the first sentence of your precious wiki extract, Dustfart.
[QUOTE]
Well anyways, when
asic compiles the binary, the resulting assembler code assigns
No, Dustfart. The assembler [sic] code is the input to the compiler,
not the output.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
Actually, it won't. The assembler code is referenced via jmp
statements in the executable.
lol - so what exactly do you think a JMP is? Something other than
"assembler code" [sic] referenced in the executable?
And since when has any assembler [sic] statement been referenceable
in an executable, Dustfart?
JMP <--- That, Dustfart, is the mnemonic for an assembler [sic] JMP
statement.
E9 <--- That, Dustfart, is unsigned hexadecimal opcode, which is
the result of compiling an assembler [sic] JMP statement.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
CODE <> INSTRUCTIONS
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
Ceteris paribus, your pervasive confusion between CODE and
INSTRUCTIONS, and binary OUTPUT with ASIC BASIC INPUT could stand
alone as testament to the truth.
[/QUOTE]
Post by Kadaitcha ManThe implication that I do not know the difference is
proven false and the reverse is true, viz it is you
who knows nothing.
Ehh, incorrect.
<pours petrol on yet another Dustfart-created straw-man>
<strikes match>
<FOOF!>
Not your decision. That straw-man was turned to carbon a long time
ago, Dustfart.
Post by Kadaitcha ManTaken together, your ineptitude and lack of ability are so immense
that you do not have the wits about you to even think of trying to
pull off a slimy card trick, let alone get caught doing it, so my
money is on implication 2.
Well, I do know the common term, machine code. :)
Well, you do now. I should bill you for all the lessons.
Oh, btw, you seem to have fooled yourself into believing you actually
stood a chance of getting away with hacking out bits you don't like
so I'll just make sure you're aware that you can't. Like I said, you
can only fool yourself all of the time, Dustin. You snipped and did
not reply to any of the following from the post you replied to.
Please attend to it; there's a jolly good chap...
Ceteris paribus, your pervasive confusion between CODE and
INSTRUCTIONS, and binary OUTPUT with ASIC BASIC INPUT could stand
alone as testament to the truth.
Post by Kadaitcha Manassembler [sic] code that we're not actually dicussing because
we're really talking about the ASIC BASIC compiler that does not
include support for assembly language mnemonics, yes?
It doesn't?
No, it doesn't. Perhaps you would like to quote vast tracts of the
manual again showing exactly where support for assembly language
mnemonics is documented while proving the exact opposite?
Strange... According to the documentation, I'm free to write
supporting functions in whatever language I desire (assembler
recommended). Asic doesn't have more than 80 commands in the entire
language. To allow for expandability, it supports you adding
additional code to your program written with more advanced languages
to do things not already available to you.
Let us grant, for the sake of argument only, that it is true that
"[you are] free to write supporting functions in whatever language
[you] desire".
Now, from that granted assumption, please explain, in your best
spluttering drool, why it is not the case that "the ASIC BASIC
compiler that does not include support for assembly language
mnemonics."
Thank you.
PS: Your audience awaits more of your shifty footwork. get to it.
Let me know if the mental dexterity required to invert the logical
negation of a plain English sentence expressed in the negative gives
you a headache, Dustfart. I'll fix it for you.
<reloads shotgun>
Post by Kadaitcha ManA) Claim 'asic is really close is to assembler' when the actual
reality is that it isn't
Ahh, but the final output executable<BITCHSLAP>
Code is input. Your claim is that the code 'is really close is to
assembler'.
Once more, for the perpetually stupid, we are dealing with input,
Dustfart, not output.
present on your hard disk after
asic has "compiled" it closely matches that of your resulting
assembler file (well, depending on your sloppyness level...). Asic
isn't p-code kook, it generates some unncessary code but not much.
Output <> Input
Code <> Instructions
ASIC BASIC <> "assmebler" [sic]
HTH
Post by Kadaitcha ManB) You habitually refer to assembly as assembler
C) You do not know the difference between an opcode and its
mnemonic; indeed, it is verifiably provable that you believe
that the mnemonics are referenced in the executable.
Yes I do. You forget, The criterr.obj file posted is a patched
variant.
What evidence do you have to support the claim that I forgot anything
about the "criterr.obj file posted"?
In order to support your claim, you are going to have to show that I
knew about, let alone fucking cared about, the "criterr.obj file
posted", you stupidly presumptuous cuntplug.
Obviously I know what the various mnemonic statements
translate to. For example, retf is CB. Mnemonics is for you to
remember things, it's one step below machine language; you keying in
the hex yourself.
The available empirical evidence does not indicate what you now
claim is the obvious.
Post by Kadaitcha ManAnd you say you're a programmer, huh?
Yes, that I am. BugHunter clearly demonstrates this. Have you seen
it recently?
<pours high-octane petroleum on Dustfart's latest straw-man>
<strikes match>
<FOOF!>
At best, the available empirical evidence indicates that you are
nothing more than a fuckwitted dabbler who lacks the necessary
logical turn of mind to cut proper code.
At worst, the available empirical evidence indicates that you are a
self-immersed and utterly delusional lying cur who rightly belongs
under intensive treatment in a mental institution.
You know, Dustfart, whenever I read your posts, I get the feeling
that your parents must surely have rued the day that lobotomies were
outlawed. Yours would be the only case in history where a full
lobotomy ever resulted in an improvement in cognitive ability.
Post by Kadaitcha Manif it's going to be used more than once, it should be a routine.
Why repeat the same code?
DUH! So, why isn't it, Dustfart...?
I agreed with your statement concerning the fact it should have been
and I didn't make it so. Why do you think your going to misquote
what was said now? :)
Real meaning: 20-20 hindsight.
Your hindsight is so keen that I am forced to wonder if you eyes in
your arse.
Post by Kadaitcha ManBWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Don't tell me. Let me guess...
"just lazy..."
Your laughing at your own intentional misquotation?
Seeing as you got caught in yet another inept context snip I'll
merely point to the body of evidence that says you're a delusional
fucktard and leave it at that.
Post by Kadaitcha ManOf course, an utter lack of capability on your part has nothing to
do with it at all, right?
Well, I don't know.
Sure you know. Deep down you do know. Your delusional state prevents
you from acknowledging it though.
. I understand what I'm doing with asic code, and
you don't seem to know what is going on. You seem to think you can
correct my code for me or something, but you can't even get the
language syntax right... You have to understand why I think that's
so damn funny. You know just as well as I do that most of our
readers aren't in fact programmers and might lap up whatever you
have to say purely on faith, but you have to consider one important
thing. Some others here are programmers and aren't fooled by your
little games.
you don't seem
You seem to think
you can't even
You have to understand
You know just as well as I do
purely on faith
you have to consider
Ok, but have you got any facts to go on?
As for this...
"You know just as well as I do that most of our readers aren't in
fact programmers and might lap up whatever you have to say purely on
faith"
I sincerely doubt your capacity to have thought about that until it
was told to you. Nevertheless if it is true that "most of our
readers aren't in fact programmers and might lap up whatever [I]
have to say purely on faith" then that's not my problem. It's yours,
entirely, and I refuse to deal with it.
You deal with it, Dustfart. It's your problem.
As for "our readers", this show is all about you, Dustfart. You and
you only. I am merely the puppeteer pulling your strings from up in
the loft.
Post by Kadaitcha ManDustfart, you need a seriously hard kick in the reality glands.
First of all, compilers produce output in a predictible manner.
That is to say, when you put your garbage code into the compiler,
what comes out is, lo and behold, compiled garbage. A BASIC
compiler will not fix your crap, inefficient code, Dustfart; it
will only produce a crap, inefficient program.
When you learn the language syntax, and get several years of actual
hands on experience programming in it, then I might consider your
advice as something more than somebody talking out of turn.
So, what depth of knowledge of "the language syntax" and how many
"years of actual hands on experience programming in" ASIC BASIC did
it take to make the following cockup...?
a$=string$(24,"+-")
that will do the same as the code above and below.
a$="+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-"
Hmm? Well?
Post by Kadaitcha ManSecondly, Dustfart, let us assume, for the sake of supposition
only, that everything I have written, plus all the evidence placed
before you to refute your insane lies is 100 percent pure,
unadulterated, irrefutable bullshit. Yes, let us assume that
everything I have written is 100% techno-poppycock.
Oh, no real assumption here. It's obvious to everyone what's going
on. 4Q is failing miserably, are you the reinforcement? I've made my
points several times over, this was just salt on your wounds.
language syntax? c'mon.. Your "corrected" one line code example
would generate an error, because it's not right, idiot. Mine is.
Would you mind showing, using, say, a join the dots picture of a
bunny rabbit, how your wild imagination managed to run up the ladder
of inference like a rat up a drainpipe and get from a wholly valid
supposition into "BRING ON THE CAVALRY!!!!" in a single leap.
In your best scribble, please. And no drool.
Thank you.
Post by Kadaitcha ManSo, Dustfart, based on that assumption, do you believe that your
readers are more inclined to fall for the techno-gobbledegook
bullshit than they are, say, to fall for the delusional ramblings
of an utterly inept fuckwit who puffs up his horribly sunken chest
and declares, "it's not quiet [sic] basic... I will tear K-man to
shreds :) blah blah. Your loss. :) Ehhhehh.. Heh, the code is
written in asic. I don't think you quiet [sic] understand what asic is"?
The unanswered question to the wholly valid supposition stands. Answer it.
Do you believe that your readers are more inclined to fall for the
techno-gobbledegook bullshit than they are, say, to fall for the
delusional ramblings of an utterly inept fuckwit who puffs up his
horribly sunken chest and declares, "it's not quiet [sic] basic... I
will tear K-man to shreds :) blah blah. Your loss. :) Ehhhehh.. Heh,
the code is written in asic. I don't think you quiet [sic]
understand what asic is"?