| ??? 02/18/08 21:00 Read: times |
#151051 - I disagree Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Cleanliness of a program (I dislike the term "code" as it refers to an unreadable text) is largely dependent on the programmer's style rather than the language of choice. It IS possible to maintain sturcture in asm, although it requires a lot of discipline.
A big disadvantage of asm is, though, that routines tend to be more than a screenful long. This still does not mean that one cannot maintain proper structures. JW PS. Some 3-4 years ago I have written a read-only FAT12&FAT16 file system into a vanilla '51 (it was a "Xilinx CPLD burner", .xsvf files have been read out of a CF card) - no space for ANY buffer, of course - and it worked. I admit it WAS a mess, but that was more of a neglection than necessity - the project was heavily underfunded (e.g. I built the prototype from various discarded pieces of older HW of other projects) and eventually died. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| File Handling using 8 bit Uc | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Of course it's possible ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes, of course - but in assembler? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Agreed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| why mess? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| FAT in assembly | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| How did FAT come up? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| FATs popularity is largely given by... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Craig cited it as an example | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I disagree | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Asm vs. C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| registers??? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Difference is... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Actually, that was me | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Oops | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| If you're not determined to use FAT12 or 16 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Conclusion? | 01/01/70 00:00 |