<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_29_1632253</id>
	<title>x86 Assembler JWASM Hits Stable Release</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1264795020000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Odoital writes <i>"January 2010 is an exciting month for x86 assembly language developers. Software developer Andreas Grech, better known to the x86 assembly language community and the rest of the world by his handle "japheth," has released another version of <a href="http://www.japheth.de/JWasm.html">JWASM</a> &mdash; a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JWASM">steadily growing fork</a> of the Open Watcom (WASM) assembler.  The main benefit of JWASM, arguably, is the nearly full support of Microsoft's Macro Assembler (MASM) syntax. As those in the assembly language community may already know, Microsoft's desire to continually support the development of MASM has been dwindling over the years &mdash; if only measurable by a decreasing lack of interest, updates and bug fixes &mdash; and thus the future of MASM remains uncertain.  While Intel-style syntax x86 assemblers such as NASM have been around for a while, JWASM opens up a new possibility to those familiar with MASM-style syntax to develop in the domains (i.e. other than Windows) in which assemblers such as NASM currently thrive. JWASM is a welcomed tool that supplements the entire x86 assembly language community and will hopefully, in time, generate new low-level interests and solutions."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Odoital writes " January 2010 is an exciting month for x86 assembly language developers .
Software developer Andreas Grech , better known to the x86 assembly language community and the rest of the world by his handle " japheth , " has released another version of JWASM    a steadily growing fork of the Open Watcom ( WASM ) assembler .
The main benefit of JWASM , arguably , is the nearly full support of Microsoft 's Macro Assembler ( MASM ) syntax .
As those in the assembly language community may already know , Microsoft 's desire to continually support the development of MASM has been dwindling over the years    if only measurable by a decreasing lack of interest , updates and bug fixes    and thus the future of MASM remains uncertain .
While Intel-style syntax x86 assemblers such as NASM have been around for a while , JWASM opens up a new possibility to those familiar with MASM-style syntax to develop in the domains ( i.e .
other than Windows ) in which assemblers such as NASM currently thrive .
JWASM is a welcomed tool that supplements the entire x86 assembly language community and will hopefully , in time , generate new low-level interests and solutions .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Odoital writes "January 2010 is an exciting month for x86 assembly language developers.
Software developer Andreas Grech, better known to the x86 assembly language community and the rest of the world by his handle "japheth," has released another version of JWASM — a steadily growing fork of the Open Watcom (WASM) assembler.
The main benefit of JWASM, arguably, is the nearly full support of Microsoft's Macro Assembler (MASM) syntax.
As those in the assembly language community may already know, Microsoft's desire to continually support the development of MASM has been dwindling over the years — if only measurable by a decreasing lack of interest, updates and bug fixes — and thus the future of MASM remains uncertain.
While Intel-style syntax x86 assemblers such as NASM have been around for a while, JWASM opens up a new possibility to those familiar with MASM-style syntax to develop in the domains (i.e.
other than Windows) in which assemblers such as NASM currently thrive.
JWASM is a welcomed tool that supplements the entire x86 assembly language community and will hopefully, in time, generate new low-level interests and solutions.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954734</id>
	<title>Re:Japheth's Other Projects!</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1264758540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> HX DOS Extender, which adds Win32 PE &amp; basic API support to DOS</p> </div><p>I wasn't quite sure what you meant by this, because what you seemed to imply it did seemed just too wrong to exist, but it turns out that it really is a DOS extender that comes with partial Win32 support.  Yes, you can now run DOSBox under DOS (and a lot of other single-window Windows apps; it probably wouldn't be too hard to add a windowing system either, but that would be far too wrong). Now all he needs to do, I guess, is add a POSIX layer...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>HX DOS Extender , which adds Win32 PE &amp; basic API support to DOS I was n't quite sure what you meant by this , because what you seemed to imply it did seemed just too wrong to exist , but it turns out that it really is a DOS extender that comes with partial Win32 support .
Yes , you can now run DOSBox under DOS ( and a lot of other single-window Windows apps ; it probably would n't be too hard to add a windowing system either , but that would be far too wrong ) .
Now all he needs to do , I guess , is add a POSIX layer.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> HX DOS Extender, which adds Win32 PE &amp; basic API support to DOS I wasn't quite sure what you meant by this, because what you seemed to imply it did seemed just too wrong to exist, but it turns out that it really is a DOS extender that comes with partial Win32 support.
Yes, you can now run DOSBox under DOS (and a lot of other single-window Windows apps; it probably wouldn't be too hard to add a windowing system either, but that would be far too wrong).
Now all he needs to do, I guess, is add a POSIX layer...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30957528</id>
	<title>Re:xor my heart</title>
	<author>RobDude</author>
	<datestamp>1264771080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Possibly off-topic - but - can anyone tell me if there is much demand for x86 assembler developers?</p><p>I'm a 'cookie cutter'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net Developer.  From what I understand, I'm pretty much a dime a dozen....I'm thinking of trying something new.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Possibly off-topic - but - can anyone tell me if there is much demand for x86 assembler developers ? I 'm a 'cookie cutter ' .Net Developer .
From what I understand , I 'm pretty much a dime a dozen....I 'm thinking of trying something new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Possibly off-topic - but - can anyone tell me if there is much demand for x86 assembler developers?I'm a 'cookie cutter' .Net Developer.
From what I understand, I'm pretty much a dime a dozen....I'm thinking of trying something new.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954800</id>
	<title>Re:Excited x86 assembly developers</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1264758780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of all CPU architectures, I think x86 assembly is exciting.  In the same way that crossing a rickety bridge over a pit of lava is exciting...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of all CPU architectures , I think x86 assembly is exciting .
In the same way that crossing a rickety bridge over a pit of lava is exciting.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of all CPU architectures, I think x86 assembly is exciting.
In the same way that crossing a rickety bridge over a pit of lava is exciting...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30959240</id>
	<title>I will still prefer YASM/NASM</title>
	<author>Myria</author>
	<datestamp>1264784640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MASM abstracts too much for my tastes.  MASM does a lot of things automatically that you don't necessarily want, and it's irritating.  Also, it is sometimes context-sensitive: "mov eax, meow" differs in meaning in MASM depending on whether "meow" is a variable or a label.  The former means to read the value stored in "meow" (mov eax, [meow]), and the other means to load the address of "meow" (mov eax, offset meow).</p><p>Also, MASM code frequently uses things like ".IF" statements to build conditional blocks for you.</p><p>NASM and the clone YASM take a far different approach: they do exactly what you tell them to.  "mov eax, meow" always means to load the address of "meow" into eax.  NASM and YASM also have many ways to specify exactly which encoding to use for your construction when it is ambiguous.  For example, you can say "add eax, byte 4" (83 C0 04) or "add eax, dword 4" (05 04 00 00 00).  I'm not sure, but it might even be possible to use the longer variant (81 C0 04 00 00 00).</p><p>If you're coding in assembly language, it's probably because you need detailed control of the processor for some operation that must be exactly the way you specify.  If you don't need that level of detail, you should do yourself and everyone else a favor and use C.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MASM abstracts too much for my tastes .
MASM does a lot of things automatically that you do n't necessarily want , and it 's irritating .
Also , it is sometimes context-sensitive : " mov eax , meow " differs in meaning in MASM depending on whether " meow " is a variable or a label .
The former means to read the value stored in " meow " ( mov eax , [ meow ] ) , and the other means to load the address of " meow " ( mov eax , offset meow ) .Also , MASM code frequently uses things like " .IF " statements to build conditional blocks for you.NASM and the clone YASM take a far different approach : they do exactly what you tell them to .
" mov eax , meow " always means to load the address of " meow " into eax .
NASM and YASM also have many ways to specify exactly which encoding to use for your construction when it is ambiguous .
For example , you can say " add eax , byte 4 " ( 83 C0 04 ) or " add eax , dword 4 " ( 05 04 00 00 00 ) .
I 'm not sure , but it might even be possible to use the longer variant ( 81 C0 04 00 00 00 ) .If you 're coding in assembly language , it 's probably because you need detailed control of the processor for some operation that must be exactly the way you specify .
If you do n't need that level of detail , you should do yourself and everyone else a favor and use C .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MASM abstracts too much for my tastes.
MASM does a lot of things automatically that you don't necessarily want, and it's irritating.
Also, it is sometimes context-sensitive: "mov eax, meow" differs in meaning in MASM depending on whether "meow" is a variable or a label.
The former means to read the value stored in "meow" (mov eax, [meow]), and the other means to load the address of "meow" (mov eax, offset meow).Also, MASM code frequently uses things like ".IF" statements to build conditional blocks for you.NASM and the clone YASM take a far different approach: they do exactly what you tell them to.
"mov eax, meow" always means to load the address of "meow" into eax.
NASM and YASM also have many ways to specify exactly which encoding to use for your construction when it is ambiguous.
For example, you can say "add eax, byte 4" (83 C0 04) or "add eax, dword 4" (05 04 00 00 00).
I'm not sure, but it might even be possible to use the longer variant (81 C0 04 00 00 00).If you're coding in assembly language, it's probably because you need detailed control of the processor for some operation that must be exactly the way you specify.
If you don't need that level of detail, you should do yourself and everyone else a favor and use C.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955380</id>
	<title>Re:And how does it differ ?</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1264761060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NASM was a good effort, but in the end its just a simple assembler with a few preprocessor features bolted on. Nobody points to NASM and declares "thats a great feature other assemblers should have" aside from its open source nature.<br>
<br>
There are many other x86 assemblers that are in the same boat as NASM. They are just simple assemblers.<br>
<br>
MASM is all about the macro language. While terribly hard to learn to do more advanced macro stuff due to the way it evolved (feature creep while maintaining compatibility), it is extremely powerful and in many ways (other than syntax) it is like having javascript for a preprocessor language (for instance, a macro can return another macro that was completely generated at assemble-time)<br>
<br>
Most assembly programmers mix with high level languages. They are essentially library programmers in asm land and application programmers in high level language land.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NASM was a good effort , but in the end its just a simple assembler with a few preprocessor features bolted on .
Nobody points to NASM and declares " thats a great feature other assemblers should have " aside from its open source nature .
There are many other x86 assemblers that are in the same boat as NASM .
They are just simple assemblers .
MASM is all about the macro language .
While terribly hard to learn to do more advanced macro stuff due to the way it evolved ( feature creep while maintaining compatibility ) , it is extremely powerful and in many ways ( other than syntax ) it is like having javascript for a preprocessor language ( for instance , a macro can return another macro that was completely generated at assemble-time ) Most assembly programmers mix with high level languages .
They are essentially library programmers in asm land and application programmers in high level language land .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NASM was a good effort, but in the end its just a simple assembler with a few preprocessor features bolted on.
Nobody points to NASM and declares "thats a great feature other assemblers should have" aside from its open source nature.
There are many other x86 assemblers that are in the same boat as NASM.
They are just simple assemblers.
MASM is all about the macro language.
While terribly hard to learn to do more advanced macro stuff due to the way it evolved (feature creep while maintaining compatibility), it is extremely powerful and in many ways (other than syntax) it is like having javascript for a preprocessor language (for instance, a macro can return another macro that was completely generated at assemble-time)

Most assembly programmers mix with high level languages.
They are essentially library programmers in asm land and application programmers in high level language land.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954098</id>
	<title>Who needs JWASM?</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1264756140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have Java!</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have Java !
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have Java!
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955492</id>
	<title>Re:why?</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1264761540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a couple of places:</p><p>1) Really tiny microcontrollers with  100 bytes of RAM.  These are pretty easily programmed in assembly, though, because there's just not that much to do.  However, this isn't affected by this news, since these microcontrollers are most certainly not x86-architecture.</p><p>2) The Linux kernel has a little bit of assembly for some low-level hardware initialization stuff.  However, for the x86 stuff, they seem to be getting along just fine with nasm.  Why anyone would care about a different assembler whose only advantage is its syntax, I have no idea.  It's not like there's anyone doing a lot of work with x86 assemblers any more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a couple of places : 1 ) Really tiny microcontrollers with 100 bytes of RAM .
These are pretty easily programmed in assembly , though , because there 's just not that much to do .
However , this is n't affected by this news , since these microcontrollers are most certainly not x86-architecture.2 ) The Linux kernel has a little bit of assembly for some low-level hardware initialization stuff .
However , for the x86 stuff , they seem to be getting along just fine with nasm .
Why anyone would care about a different assembler whose only advantage is its syntax , I have no idea .
It 's not like there 's anyone doing a lot of work with x86 assemblers any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a couple of places:1) Really tiny microcontrollers with  100 bytes of RAM.
These are pretty easily programmed in assembly, though, because there's just not that much to do.
However, this isn't affected by this news, since these microcontrollers are most certainly not x86-architecture.2) The Linux kernel has a little bit of assembly for some low-level hardware initialization stuff.
However, for the x86 stuff, they seem to be getting along just fine with nasm.
Why anyone would care about a different assembler whose only advantage is its syntax, I have no idea.
It's not like there's anyone doing a lot of work with x86 assemblers any more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958046</id>
	<title>Re:Wikiwars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264774260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the slashdot article was written to provide a reliable source, so that the wikipedia article would be kept.   The flamewar already spilled over to slashdot<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)    But you know what the nice thing is? It actually produced something useful, on both sides!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the slashdot article was written to provide a reliable source , so that the wikipedia article would be kept .
The flamewar already spilled over to slashdot ; - ) But you know what the nice thing is ?
It actually produced something useful , on both sides !
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the slashdot article was written to provide a reliable source, so that the wikipedia article would be kept.
The flamewar already spilled over to slashdot ;-)    But you know what the nice thing is?
It actually produced something useful, on both sides!
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954312</id>
	<title>Re:Japheth's Other Projects!</title>
	<author>glwtta</author>
	<datestamp>1264756920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Japheth has a number of rather interesting projects that extend the functionality of DOS.</i>
<br> <br>
Awesome, I'm always on the lookout for cool stuff like this to keep my DOS workstation cutting edge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Japheth has a number of rather interesting projects that extend the functionality of DOS .
Awesome , I 'm always on the lookout for cool stuff like this to keep my DOS workstation cutting edge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Japheth has a number of rather interesting projects that extend the functionality of DOS.
Awesome, I'm always on the lookout for cool stuff like this to keep my DOS workstation cutting edge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30957746</id>
	<title>Re:xor my heart</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264772340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds me of something fun during an interview...  I interview some guy for a Job at a startup developing applications for mobile devices.  His CV says he did C#, Java but also C, assembly, etc. so I ask a few questions about Java and he goes "oh I did some of these but I'm a low-level guy, I'm good at optimizing things in C and assembly" (supposedly he had been working on some Uni project, optimizing a ray-tracer or something, I don't remember his resume)...</p><p>Me: "Oh so you know assembly well?"<br>Him: "yes, very well"<br>Me: "On what kind of CPUs have you programmed in assembly?"</p><p>After my question, he instantly turned red.  The only time I've seen someone turn red faster than that was the day I busted a girlfriend who had cheated on me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of something fun during an interview... I interview some guy for a Job at a startup developing applications for mobile devices .
His CV says he did C # , Java but also C , assembly , etc .
so I ask a few questions about Java and he goes " oh I did some of these but I 'm a low-level guy , I 'm good at optimizing things in C and assembly " ( supposedly he had been working on some Uni project , optimizing a ray-tracer or something , I do n't remember his resume ) ...Me : " Oh so you know assembly well ?
" Him : " yes , very well " Me : " On what kind of CPUs have you programmed in assembly ?
" After my question , he instantly turned red .
The only time I 've seen someone turn red faster than that was the day I busted a girlfriend who had cheated on me ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of something fun during an interview...  I interview some guy for a Job at a startup developing applications for mobile devices.
His CV says he did C#, Java but also C, assembly, etc.
so I ask a few questions about Java and he goes "oh I did some of these but I'm a low-level guy, I'm good at optimizing things in C and assembly" (supposedly he had been working on some Uni project, optimizing a ray-tracer or something, I don't remember his resume)...Me: "Oh so you know assembly well?
"Him: "yes, very well"Me: "On what kind of CPUs have you programmed in assembly?
"After my question, he instantly turned red.
The only time I've seen someone turn red faster than that was the day I busted a girlfriend who had cheated on me ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30965300</id>
	<title>Re:And how does it differ ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264844760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The direction of operands is the opposite way around and doesn't comform to normal coding standards. For example,</p><p>Intel:<br>mov ax, 9 (move 9 into ax)</p><p>AT&amp;T:<br>mov 9, \%ax (move 9 into ax)</p><p>Now compare AT&amp;T with the how memory is assigned or calculated in pretty much all programming languages:<br>int a;<br>a = 5;</p><p>or</p><p>int a, integerB, integerC;<br>a = integerB + integerC;</p><p>And you'll find the right hand side equating to the left hand side.</p><p>So if, like me, you've been brought up with high level languages, had a crash course in assembler (the intel way) and decided to expand on it. You'd probably find that the extraneous symbols and the operator direction such a headache!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The direction of operands is the opposite way around and does n't comform to normal coding standards .
For example,Intel : mov ax , 9 ( move 9 into ax ) AT&amp;T : mov 9 , \ % ax ( move 9 into ax ) Now compare AT&amp;T with the how memory is assigned or calculated in pretty much all programming languages : int a ; a = 5 ; orint a , integerB , integerC ; a = integerB + integerC ; And you 'll find the right hand side equating to the left hand side.So if , like me , you 've been brought up with high level languages , had a crash course in assembler ( the intel way ) and decided to expand on it .
You 'd probably find that the extraneous symbols and the operator direction such a headache !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The direction of operands is the opposite way around and doesn't comform to normal coding standards.
For example,Intel:mov ax, 9 (move 9 into ax)AT&amp;T:mov 9, \%ax (move 9 into ax)Now compare AT&amp;T with the how memory is assigned or calculated in pretty much all programming languages:int a;a = 5;orint a, integerB, integerC;a = integerB + integerC;And you'll find the right hand side equating to the left hand side.So if, like me, you've been brought up with high level languages, had a crash course in assembler (the intel way) and decided to expand on it.
You'd probably find that the extraneous symbols and the operator direction such a headache!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954100</id>
	<title>An exciting month for who?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264756140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>January 2010 is an exciting month for x86 assembly language developers.</p></div><p>I'm sure the two of them will be pleased.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>January 2010 is an exciting month for x86 assembly language developers.I 'm sure the two of them will be pleased .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>January 2010 is an exciting month for x86 assembly language developers.I'm sure the two of them will be pleased.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954844</id>
	<title>Wikiwars</title>
	<author>SarekOfVulcan</author>
	<datestamp>1264758900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Be warned -- JWASM's Wikipedia article was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles\_for\_deletion/JWASM" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">nominated for deletion</a> [wikipedia.org], as it was thought that notability was not sufficiently asserted. The flame war there might spill over here as well.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Be warned -- JWASM 's Wikipedia article was nominated for deletion [ wikipedia.org ] , as it was thought that notability was not sufficiently asserted .
The flame war there might spill over here as well .
: - (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Be warned -- JWASM's Wikipedia article was nominated for deletion [wikipedia.org], as it was thought that notability was not sufficiently asserted.
The flame war there might spill over here as well.
:-(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955884</id>
	<title>Re:why?</title>
	<author>calzakk</author>
	<datestamp>1264763280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In short, speed.</p><p>I did a little assembly some years ago.  I was writing an image processing algorithm in C which was taking something like 10ms, which just wasn't good enough.  So I rewrote it in x86 assembly, and got it down to 2ms or so.  But, wanting to go even further, I rewrote it using MMX and got it down to well under 1ms.  <i>Much</i> faster than the original C code, so much more useful.</p><p>Assembly's still used of course, but most people don't even know it's there. We've just been spoiled with lazy high-level languages (C#, Java), faster hardware, and better compilers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In short , speed.I did a little assembly some years ago .
I was writing an image processing algorithm in C which was taking something like 10ms , which just was n't good enough .
So I rewrote it in x86 assembly , and got it down to 2ms or so .
But , wanting to go even further , I rewrote it using MMX and got it down to well under 1ms .
Much faster than the original C code , so much more useful.Assembly 's still used of course , but most people do n't even know it 's there .
We 've just been spoiled with lazy high-level languages ( C # , Java ) , faster hardware , and better compilers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In short, speed.I did a little assembly some years ago.
I was writing an image processing algorithm in C which was taking something like 10ms, which just wasn't good enough.
So I rewrote it in x86 assembly, and got it down to 2ms or so.
But, wanting to go even further, I rewrote it using MMX and got it down to well under 1ms.
Much faster than the original C code, so much more useful.Assembly's still used of course, but most people don't even know it's there.
We've just been spoiled with lazy high-level languages (C#, Java), faster hardware, and better compilers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30960542</id>
	<title>I fixed your typo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264844520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Software developer Andreas Grech, better known <b>as</b> the x86 assembly language community"</p><p>You're welcome</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Software developer Andreas Grech , better known as the x86 assembly language community " You 're welcome</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Software developer Andreas Grech, better known as the x86 assembly language community"You're welcome</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30957226</id>
	<title>Re:That's good news</title>
	<author>SignoffTheSourcerer</author>
	<datestamp>1264769520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And my alltime favorite:

rep jmp cx</htmltext>
<tokenext>And my alltime favorite : rep jmp cx</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And my alltime favorite:

rep jmp cx</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954774</id>
	<title>Re:And how does it differ ?</title>
	<author>EvanED</author>
	<datestamp>1264758720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To answer your other question about benefits, most of the benefit comes from your toolchain. If you're using a toolchain that is designed to work with AT&amp;T syntax, like GCC, then no, there's no benefit. If you want to interoperate with MSVC, there's a ton of benefit. (In particular, if you want to use inline asm in a MSVC program, it uses Intel syntax.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To answer your other question about benefits , most of the benefit comes from your toolchain .
If you 're using a toolchain that is designed to work with AT&amp;T syntax , like GCC , then no , there 's no benefit .
If you want to interoperate with MSVC , there 's a ton of benefit .
( In particular , if you want to use inline asm in a MSVC program , it uses Intel syntax .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To answer your other question about benefits, most of the benefit comes from your toolchain.
If you're using a toolchain that is designed to work with AT&amp;T syntax, like GCC, then no, there's no benefit.
If you want to interoperate with MSVC, there's a ton of benefit.
(In particular, if you want to use inline asm in a MSVC program, it uses Intel syntax.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958090</id>
	<title>Re:xor my heart</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264774620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Remarkably, it's my understanding that sometime between 1973 and 2010 some HTML tags such as &lt;BR&gt; and &lt;P&gt; were introduced. I've also heard these can even be used to format comments on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remarkably , it 's my understanding that sometime between 1973 and 2010 some HTML tags such as and were introduced .
I 've also heard these can even be used to format comments on / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remarkably, it's my understanding that sometime between 1973 and 2010 some HTML tags such as  and  were introduced.
I've also heard these can even be used to format comments on /.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30956082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955178</id>
	<title>Re:Just for some perspective...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264760100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the past, I preferred <a href="http://www.nasm.us/" title="www.nasm.us" rel="nofollow">NASM</a> [www.nasm.us] for x86 cross platform development, meaning Win32 and Linux. It had decent support for the latest sets of instructions. The Microsoft syntax is something I prefer to avoid, so NASM was actually a plus in that respect, although some coworkers disagreed. There's a brief, but up-to-date comparison of x86 assemblers in Fog Agner's <a href="http://www.agner.org/optimize/optimizing\_assembly.pdf" title="agner.org" rel="nofollow">book</a> [agner.org]. He says that YASM is better than NASM these days, and uses the same syntax. The Wikipedia page on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open\_Watcom\_Assembler" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Open Watcom Assembler</a> [wikipedia.org] also has book reference that seemingly compares MASM vs. NASM vs. TASM vs. WASM, but it's from 2005.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the past , I preferred NASM [ www.nasm.us ] for x86 cross platform development , meaning Win32 and Linux .
It had decent support for the latest sets of instructions .
The Microsoft syntax is something I prefer to avoid , so NASM was actually a plus in that respect , although some coworkers disagreed .
There 's a brief , but up-to-date comparison of x86 assemblers in Fog Agner 's book [ agner.org ] .
He says that YASM is better than NASM these days , and uses the same syntax .
The Wikipedia page on Open Watcom Assembler [ wikipedia.org ] also has book reference that seemingly compares MASM vs. NASM vs. TASM vs. WASM , but it 's from 2005 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the past, I preferred NASM [www.nasm.us] for x86 cross platform development, meaning Win32 and Linux.
It had decent support for the latest sets of instructions.
The Microsoft syntax is something I prefer to avoid, so NASM was actually a plus in that respect, although some coworkers disagreed.
There's a brief, but up-to-date comparison of x86 assemblers in Fog Agner's book [agner.org].
He says that YASM is better than NASM these days, and uses the same syntax.
The Wikipedia page on Open Watcom Assembler [wikipedia.org] also has book reference that seemingly compares MASM vs. NASM vs. TASM vs. WASM, but it's from 2005.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30953980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955784</id>
	<title>Can anyone recommend a good interactive tutroial?</title>
	<author>metrix007</author>
	<datestamp>1264762740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would really like to understand the underlying hardware better, but have found the concepts difficult so far.</p><p>Can anyone recommend a good perhaps interactive tutorial that explains these concepts?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would really like to understand the underlying hardware better , but have found the concepts difficult so far.Can anyone recommend a good perhaps interactive tutorial that explains these concepts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would really like to understand the underlying hardware better, but have found the concepts difficult so far.Can anyone recommend a good perhaps interactive tutorial that explains these concepts?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30960924</id>
	<title>Re:That's good news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264850820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to be picky, but what if data is in code segment (for example DOS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com file)?<br>db 'Because I kinda like assembly.$' will be executed right after pusha in that case.<br>Ooops.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to be picky , but what if data is in code segment ( for example DOS .com file ) ? db 'Because I kinda like assembly. $ ' will be executed right after pusha in that case.Ooops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to be picky, but what if data is in code segment (for example DOS .com file)?db 'Because I kinda like assembly.$' will be executed right after pusha in that case.Ooops.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954528</id>
	<title>And how does it differ ?</title>
	<author>alvieboy</author>
	<datestamp>1264757820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty much all of assemblers I know work the same way (despite syntax). You can also add macro functionalities to some, using external preprocessors.<br>So, if anyone can elucidate me, how does this MASM differ from NASM ? And how does its syntax differs from NASM and AT&amp;T ?<br>I use AT&amp;T syntax a lot (gas), embedded in gcc (for microcontrollers). Do I get any real benefit by using other variants? If so, which benefits ?<br>Alvie</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty much all of assemblers I know work the same way ( despite syntax ) .
You can also add macro functionalities to some , using external preprocessors.So , if anyone can elucidate me , how does this MASM differ from NASM ?
And how does its syntax differs from NASM and AT&amp;T ? I use AT&amp;T syntax a lot ( gas ) , embedded in gcc ( for microcontrollers ) .
Do I get any real benefit by using other variants ?
If so , which benefits ? Alvie</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty much all of assemblers I know work the same way (despite syntax).
You can also add macro functionalities to some, using external preprocessors.So, if anyone can elucidate me, how does this MASM differ from NASM ?
And how does its syntax differs from NASM and AT&amp;T ?I use AT&amp;T syntax a lot (gas), embedded in gcc (for microcontrollers).
Do I get any real benefit by using other variants?
If so, which benefits ?Alvie</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954142</id>
	<title>Programming from the Ground Up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264756380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or you could use gcc <p>
<a href="http://mirrors.igsobe.com/nongnu/pgubook/ProgrammingGroundUp-1-0-booksize.pdf" title="igsobe.com">Programming from the Ground Up</a> [igsobe.com]
</p><blockquote><div><p>I highly recommend working through this book even if you'll never program assembly again... you'll be a vastly better programmer. -- Joel Spolsky, JoelOnSoftware.com</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or you could use gcc Programming from the Ground Up [ igsobe.com ] I highly recommend working through this book even if you 'll never program assembly again... you 'll be a vastly better programmer .
-- Joel Spolsky , JoelOnSoftware.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or you could use gcc 
Programming from the Ground Up [igsobe.com]
I highly recommend working through this book even if you'll never program assembly again... you'll be a vastly better programmer.
-- Joel Spolsky, JoelOnSoftware.com
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955050</id>
	<title>OMG</title>
	<author>SpaghettiPattern</author>
	<datestamp>1264759620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>January 2010 is an exciting month for x86 assembly language developers.</p></div><p>What? You mean both of them?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>January 2010 is an exciting month for x86 assembly language developers.What ?
You mean both of them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>January 2010 is an exciting month for x86 assembly language developers.What?
You mean both of them?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958102</id>
	<title>Re:why?</title>
	<author>dasqua</author>
	<datestamp>1264774800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For a given definition of "compiled" most high level languages are technically running compiled code: Java/Python certainly are. (Except HTTP which is a protocol...)</p><p>From the perspective of a CPU, everything is interpreted. If your problem requires a solution that is best expressed in Python or Ruby etc then go for it. If you need extra speed right now then dig further - and remember that in at least a year's time your optimised code might not be so valuable. Just about all high level languages can make use of a module written in assembly via some kind of call interface.</p><p>High level languages provide abstraction layers to simplify producing a system that addresses some need. It's easier to justify writing a web application in PHP than assembly. OTOH there are certainly niches where C or even assembly could be a better solution, eg serving seldom changing files via http.</p><p>Your mileage may vary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a given definition of " compiled " most high level languages are technically running compiled code : Java/Python certainly are .
( Except HTTP which is a protocol... ) From the perspective of a CPU , everything is interpreted .
If your problem requires a solution that is best expressed in Python or Ruby etc then go for it .
If you need extra speed right now then dig further - and remember that in at least a year 's time your optimised code might not be so valuable .
Just about all high level languages can make use of a module written in assembly via some kind of call interface.High level languages provide abstraction layers to simplify producing a system that addresses some need .
It 's easier to justify writing a web application in PHP than assembly .
OTOH there are certainly niches where C or even assembly could be a better solution , eg serving seldom changing files via http.Your mileage may vary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a given definition of "compiled" most high level languages are technically running compiled code: Java/Python certainly are.
(Except HTTP which is a protocol...)From the perspective of a CPU, everything is interpreted.
If your problem requires a solution that is best expressed in Python or Ruby etc then go for it.
If you need extra speed right now then dig further - and remember that in at least a year's time your optimised code might not be so valuable.
Just about all high level languages can make use of a module written in assembly via some kind of call interface.High level languages provide abstraction layers to simplify producing a system that addresses some need.
It's easier to justify writing a web application in PHP than assembly.
OTOH there are certainly niches where C or even assembly could be a better solution, eg serving seldom changing files via http.Your mileage may vary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958116</id>
	<title>jello stacking</title>
	<author>epine</author>
	<datestamp>1264774860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never got a five times speedup over Microsoft, but we consistently got 30\% reduction in code size, which on a 640KB machine is not to be sneezed at.  A big part of that was the excellent register calling conventions and pragma support.</p><p>The reality is that Watcom C++ was crushed by Microsoft Visual C++ which had a slick interface lashed onto appalling C++ language support.  This was an era when anything slapped in a box was saleable software.</p><p>People forget that before eyeballs displaced profit, fatuousness displaced quality.  It didn't matter very much if the feature worked as advertised.  Software users, like deluded sports fans, believed that hope springs eternal.  Maybe it would work in the next version?  Sadly, programmers fell for the hype just as often as the end consumers.  RIP Watcom.</p><p>The day Watcom packed it in&mdash;effectively about a version before their last release&mdash;I knew that quality had lost the race for many years to come.  I didn't have it in me for a career in jello stacking, so I went off for a while to do my own thing.  These days, quality is back on the table, for jobs that no longer exist.  But if they did, it would be good times again.</p><p>Bill Watterson really knew what he was doing when he drew all those snowmen in the first half of the 1990s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never got a five times speedup over Microsoft , but we consistently got 30 \ % reduction in code size , which on a 640KB machine is not to be sneezed at .
A big part of that was the excellent register calling conventions and pragma support.The reality is that Watcom C + + was crushed by Microsoft Visual C + + which had a slick interface lashed onto appalling C + + language support .
This was an era when anything slapped in a box was saleable software.People forget that before eyeballs displaced profit , fatuousness displaced quality .
It did n't matter very much if the feature worked as advertised .
Software users , like deluded sports fans , believed that hope springs eternal .
Maybe it would work in the next version ?
Sadly , programmers fell for the hype just as often as the end consumers .
RIP Watcom.The day Watcom packed it in    effectively about a version before their last release    I knew that quality had lost the race for many years to come .
I did n't have it in me for a career in jello stacking , so I went off for a while to do my own thing .
These days , quality is back on the table , for jobs that no longer exist .
But if they did , it would be good times again.Bill Watterson really knew what he was doing when he drew all those snowmen in the first half of the 1990s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never got a five times speedup over Microsoft, but we consistently got 30\% reduction in code size, which on a 640KB machine is not to be sneezed at.
A big part of that was the excellent register calling conventions and pragma support.The reality is that Watcom C++ was crushed by Microsoft Visual C++ which had a slick interface lashed onto appalling C++ language support.
This was an era when anything slapped in a box was saleable software.People forget that before eyeballs displaced profit, fatuousness displaced quality.
It didn't matter very much if the feature worked as advertised.
Software users, like deluded sports fans, believed that hope springs eternal.
Maybe it would work in the next version?
Sadly, programmers fell for the hype just as often as the end consumers.
RIP Watcom.The day Watcom packed it in—effectively about a version before their last release—I knew that quality had lost the race for many years to come.
I didn't have it in me for a career in jello stacking, so I went off for a while to do my own thing.
These days, quality is back on the table, for jobs that no longer exist.
But if they did, it would be good times again.Bill Watterson really knew what he was doing when he drew all those snowmen in the first half of the 1990s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954332</id>
	<title>I'll ask it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264756920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the difference between all of these different Assemblers?  Aren't they all just x86, AMD64, or IA32</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the difference between all of these different Assemblers ?
Are n't they all just x86 , AMD64 , or IA32</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the difference between all of these different Assemblers?
Aren't they all just x86, AMD64, or IA32</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954468</id>
	<title>Hey that's great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264757580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's write some nVidia drivers in Java!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's write some nVidia drivers in Java !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's write some nVidia drivers in Java!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954730</id>
	<title>Re:why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264758540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not quite.  There are always situations when writing an operating system where you need assembly.  For example, impelmenting the actual 'guts' of a context switch requires fine tuned control over what is in each register.</p><p>(C programs tend to assume the stack is available.  But in the middle of a context switch, it might not.  Assembly gives that level of control).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not quite .
There are always situations when writing an operating system where you need assembly .
For example , impelmenting the actual 'guts ' of a context switch requires fine tuned control over what is in each register .
( C programs tend to assume the stack is available .
But in the middle of a context switch , it might not .
Assembly gives that level of control ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not quite.
There are always situations when writing an operating system where you need assembly.
For example, impelmenting the actual 'guts' of a context switch requires fine tuned control over what is in each register.
(C programs tend to assume the stack is available.
But in the middle of a context switch, it might not.
Assembly gives that level of control).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30957182</id>
	<title>So much fun</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264769280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had so much fun reading your comment guys. I start to understand what "normal" people feel when I talk about programming. And I mostly do Ruby and Python sometimes C. Continue to have fun with asm x86, we need you guys !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had so much fun reading your comment guys .
I start to understand what " normal " people feel when I talk about programming .
And I mostly do Ruby and Python sometimes C. Continue to have fun with asm x86 , we need you guys !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had so much fun reading your comment guys.
I start to understand what "normal" people feel when I talk about programming.
And I mostly do Ruby and Python sometimes C. Continue to have fun with asm x86, we need you guys !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30981128</id>
	<title>Re:xor my heart</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1265039820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>your code is relying on a non-zero value in the AX register in order to do anything useful.</p></div><p>No. The output (zero) when AX was zero is still useful.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>your code is relying on a non-zero value in the AX register in order to do anything useful.No .
The output ( zero ) when AX was zero is still useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>your code is relying on a non-zero value in the AX register in order to do anything useful.No.
The output (zero) when AX was zero is still useful.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30957968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30959162</id>
	<title>Re:xor my heart</title>
	<author>Myria</author>
	<datestamp>1264783680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see your x86 absolute value trick and raise you my MIPS absolute value trick:</p><p>bgtz a0, label<br>label:<br>subu a0, zero, a0</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see your x86 absolute value trick and raise you my MIPS absolute value trick : bgtz a0 , labellabel : subu a0 , zero , a0</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see your x86 absolute value trick and raise you my MIPS absolute value trick:bgtz a0, labellabel:subu a0, zero, a0</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958264</id>
	<title>Re:why?</title>
	<author>mick232</author>
	<datestamp>1264775940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You must live under a rock, right? Java was an interpreted language 10 years ago, but that has changed since. Probably about the same time as HTPP/CGI got obsolete.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You must live under a rock , right ?
Java was an interpreted language 10 years ago , but that has changed since .
Probably about the same time as HTPP/CGI got obsolete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must live under a rock, right?
Java was an interpreted language 10 years ago, but that has changed since.
Probably about the same time as HTPP/CGI got obsolete.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955350</id>
	<title>That's good news</title>
	<author>bl8n8r</author>
	<datestamp>1264760940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>pusha<br>msg db 'Because I kinda like assembly.$'<br>mov ax, seg msg<br>mov ds, ax<br>mov ah, 9<br>int 21h<br>popa<br>mov ax, 4c00h<br>int 21h<br>nop</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>pushamsg db 'Because I kinda like assembly. $ 'mov ax , seg msgmov ds , axmov ah , 9int 21hpopamov ax , 4c00hint 21hnop</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pushamsg db 'Because I kinda like assembly.$'mov ax, seg msgmov ds, axmov ah, 9int 21hpopamov ax, 4c00hint 21hnop</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954642</id>
	<title>Flat Assembler?</title>
	<author>Futurepower(R)</author>
	<datestamp>1264758240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How does JWASM compare with <a href="http://flatassembler.net/download.php" title="flatassembler.net">Flat Assembler?</a> [flatassembler.net]</htmltext>
<tokenext>How does JWASM compare with Flat Assembler ?
[ flatassembler.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does JWASM compare with Flat Assembler?
[flatassembler.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955592</id>
	<title>Assembler</title>
	<author>should\_be\_linear</author>
	<datestamp>1264761840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to program anything serious in assembler until, say, 1991. Then I moved to C++/Pascal, but always hand-tuned critical parts with Assembler. Around 1995 I realized compilers are doing better job in optimization of those critical parts then my hand-crafted assembly code. I think currently it is only useful for SIMD instructions and similar cases where it is hard for compiler to figure parallel data manipulation with specialized instructions. With ongoing improvements in compilers, those will go away too, right? Or is there anything compilers definitely cannot figure out?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to program anything serious in assembler until , say , 1991 .
Then I moved to C + + /Pascal , but always hand-tuned critical parts with Assembler .
Around 1995 I realized compilers are doing better job in optimization of those critical parts then my hand-crafted assembly code .
I think currently it is only useful for SIMD instructions and similar cases where it is hard for compiler to figure parallel data manipulation with specialized instructions .
With ongoing improvements in compilers , those will go away too , right ?
Or is there anything compilers definitely can not figure out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to program anything serious in assembler until, say, 1991.
Then I moved to C++/Pascal, but always hand-tuned critical parts with Assembler.
Around 1995 I realized compilers are doing better job in optimization of those critical parts then my hand-crafted assembly code.
I think currently it is only useful for SIMD instructions and similar cases where it is hard for compiler to figure parallel data manipulation with specialized instructions.
With ongoing improvements in compilers, those will go away too, right?
Or is there anything compilers definitely cannot figure out?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30962036</id>
	<title>Re:why?</title>
	<author>snemarch</author>
	<datestamp>1264865640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>An assembler assembles assembly code - you don't write "assembler code", you write "assembly code". Unless of course you're writing an actual assembler<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>An assembler assembles assembly code - you do n't write " assembler code " , you write " assembly code " .
Unless of course you 're writing an actual assembler ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An assembler assembles assembly code - you don't write "assembler code", you write "assembly code".
Unless of course you're writing an actual assembler ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954900</id>
	<title>Re:why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264759140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And in JRuby how would you use a new asm instruction in that new CPU to get that 40x speedup?</p><p>Right too right job...</p><p>Also there are MANY times a compiler will pick a very strange sequence of asm.  That is crazy slower.  Compilers are good.  But when you need that little extra umph you crack out the asm.</p><p>Compilers are fairly restricted in what asm codes they will emit.  As they try to hit the sweet spot on all cpus.  But some cpus do better with other sequences than others.</p><p>The only reason you are where you are is because you are standing on the backs of the code that does crazy things with asm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And in JRuby how would you use a new asm instruction in that new CPU to get that 40x speedup ? Right too right job...Also there are MANY times a compiler will pick a very strange sequence of asm .
That is crazy slower .
Compilers are good .
But when you need that little extra umph you crack out the asm.Compilers are fairly restricted in what asm codes they will emit .
As they try to hit the sweet spot on all cpus .
But some cpus do better with other sequences than others.The only reason you are where you are is because you are standing on the backs of the code that does crazy things with asm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And in JRuby how would you use a new asm instruction in that new CPU to get that 40x speedup?Right too right job...Also there are MANY times a compiler will pick a very strange sequence of asm.
That is crazy slower.
Compilers are good.
But when you need that little extra umph you crack out the asm.Compilers are fairly restricted in what asm codes they will emit.
As they try to hit the sweet spot on all cpus.
But some cpus do better with other sequences than others.The only reason you are where you are is because you are standing on the backs of the code that does crazy things with asm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958344</id>
	<title>Re:Watcom, I cry for thee.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264776600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I still weep slightly when I think of Watcom and their products.</p><p>To see such a small shop create some high-quality products is truly a testament to the fantastic talent that they had working there. It saddened me greatly to see them consumed by Powersoft, and then Sybase.</p></div><p>You may find it comforting that most of that original talent is still "there". I interned at Watcom 13 years ago, and I still keep in touch with many of the friends I made there. The place was a joy to work at, and there was almost no turnover. Walk through the company now, and all the same names are still there. Sure, the compiler people switched to WSQL (now Sybase SQL Anywhere), but they're still the same team. They were, and still are, like a family.</p><p>And don't worry too much about Sybase having "consumed" them, either. Sybase recognizes that they're consistenly one of their best performing divisions of the company, and mostly leaves them alone to do their stuff.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still weep slightly when I think of Watcom and their products.To see such a small shop create some high-quality products is truly a testament to the fantastic talent that they had working there .
It saddened me greatly to see them consumed by Powersoft , and then Sybase.You may find it comforting that most of that original talent is still " there " .
I interned at Watcom 13 years ago , and I still keep in touch with many of the friends I made there .
The place was a joy to work at , and there was almost no turnover .
Walk through the company now , and all the same names are still there .
Sure , the compiler people switched to WSQL ( now Sybase SQL Anywhere ) , but they 're still the same team .
They were , and still are , like a family.And do n't worry too much about Sybase having " consumed " them , either .
Sybase recognizes that they 're consistenly one of their best performing divisions of the company , and mostly leaves them alone to do their stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still weep slightly when I think of Watcom and their products.To see such a small shop create some high-quality products is truly a testament to the fantastic talent that they had working there.
It saddened me greatly to see them consumed by Powersoft, and then Sybase.You may find it comforting that most of that original talent is still "there".
I interned at Watcom 13 years ago, and I still keep in touch with many of the friends I made there.
The place was a joy to work at, and there was almost no turnover.
Walk through the company now, and all the same names are still there.
Sure, the compiler people switched to WSQL (now Sybase SQL Anywhere), but they're still the same team.
They were, and still are, like a family.And don't worry too much about Sybase having "consumed" them, either.
Sybase recognizes that they're consistenly one of their best performing divisions of the company, and mostly leaves them alone to do their stuff.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30961852</id>
	<title>How come</title>
	<author>EdgeCreeper</author>
	<datestamp>1264864020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If there is a Jehovah's Witness Assembler it hasn't come knocking at my door.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there is a Jehovah 's Witness Assembler it has n't come knocking at my door .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there is a Jehovah's Witness Assembler it hasn't come knocking at my door.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30965254</id>
	<title>little stupid question</title>
	<author>acteon</author>
	<datestamp>1264844460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can't I fave or save a headline without posting a reply about if I can't fave or save a headline?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't I fave or save a headline without posting a reply about if I ca n't fave or save a headline ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't I fave or save a headline without posting a reply about if I can't fave or save a headline?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30962288</id>
	<title>Re:Programming from the Ground Up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264867680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not from the ground up. <a href="http://www1.idc.ac.il/tecs/" title="idc.ac.il" rel="nofollow">This</a> [idc.ac.il] is from the ground up. There's a course and some videos on the net built on this named "from NAND to tetris". I think I saw a curriculum somewhere, where the students actually started by going to the lab to make a single NAND gate with lithography, then do the rest of the course with simulated gates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not from the ground up .
This [ idc.ac.il ] is from the ground up .
There 's a course and some videos on the net built on this named " from NAND to tetris " .
I think I saw a curriculum somewhere , where the students actually started by going to the lab to make a single NAND gate with lithography , then do the rest of the course with simulated gates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not from the ground up.
This [idc.ac.il] is from the ground up.
There's a course and some videos on the net built on this named "from NAND to tetris".
I think I saw a curriculum somewhere, where the students actually started by going to the lab to make a single NAND gate with lithography, then do the rest of the course with simulated gates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30961300</id>
	<title>Re:Wikiwars</title>
	<author>richlv</author>
	<datestamp>1264857060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>egad. can we please expose, bring out and torture people who delete (or propose for deletion) such pages ?<br>the power of wikipedia is finding all kinds of pretty obscure information, neatly laid out and described. if it's not, i sometimes fix a thing here or there myself.<br>notability requirements are required, we wouldn't want an article on every person ever lived, but that's the opposite extreme.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>egad .
can we please expose , bring out and torture people who delete ( or propose for deletion ) such pages ? the power of wikipedia is finding all kinds of pretty obscure information , neatly laid out and described .
if it 's not , i sometimes fix a thing here or there myself.notability requirements are required , we would n't want an article on every person ever lived , but that 's the opposite extreme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>egad.
can we please expose, bring out and torture people who delete (or propose for deletion) such pages ?the power of wikipedia is finding all kinds of pretty obscure information, neatly laid out and described.
if it's not, i sometimes fix a thing here or there myself.notability requirements are required, we wouldn't want an article on every person ever lived, but that's the opposite extreme.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954502</id>
	<title>why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264757700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is primary use of assembly these days? I thought C gave you the same level of control, but with portability and much-improved readability.</p><p>And to give you an idea of where this question is coming from, the last app I wrote was a web app runs in JRuby, using DataMapper to free me from dealing with SQL and Sinatra to free me from dealing with HTTP/CGI. It runs on the Google App Engine cloud. My world is so high-level, with so many layers of virtualization and encapsulation, that I can barely see assembly way down there at the bottom of the stack...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is primary use of assembly these days ?
I thought C gave you the same level of control , but with portability and much-improved readability.And to give you an idea of where this question is coming from , the last app I wrote was a web app runs in JRuby , using DataMapper to free me from dealing with SQL and Sinatra to free me from dealing with HTTP/CGI .
It runs on the Google App Engine cloud .
My world is so high-level , with so many layers of virtualization and encapsulation , that I can barely see assembly way down there at the bottom of the stack.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is primary use of assembly these days?
I thought C gave you the same level of control, but with portability and much-improved readability.And to give you an idea of where this question is coming from, the last app I wrote was a web app runs in JRuby, using DataMapper to free me from dealing with SQL and Sinatra to free me from dealing with HTTP/CGI.
It runs on the Google App Engine cloud.
My world is so high-level, with so many layers of virtualization and encapsulation, that I can barely see assembly way down there at the bottom of the stack...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955562</id>
	<title>IDA Pro</title>
	<author>mpsmps</author>
	<datestamp>1264761720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's far from cheap (let alone free) and it's not an assembler, but <a href="http://www.hex-rays.com/idapro/" title="hex-rays.com">IDA Pro</a> [hex-rays.com] is indispensible for anyone who needs to develop, analyze, or debug code in assembler. It can't assemble code for you but it does <em>everything</em> else ( <a href="http://www.hex-rays.com/idapro/pix/idalarge.gif" title="hex-rays.com">http://www.hex-rays.com/idapro/pix/idalarge.gif</a> [hex-rays.com]) you've thought of and many you haven't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's far from cheap ( let alone free ) and it 's not an assembler , but IDA Pro [ hex-rays.com ] is indispensible for anyone who needs to develop , analyze , or debug code in assembler .
It ca n't assemble code for you but it does everything else ( http : //www.hex-rays.com/idapro/pix/idalarge.gif [ hex-rays.com ] ) you 've thought of and many you have n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's far from cheap (let alone free) and it's not an assembler, but IDA Pro [hex-rays.com] is indispensible for anyone who needs to develop, analyze, or debug code in assembler.
It can't assemble code for you but it does everything else ( http://www.hex-rays.com/idapro/pix/idalarge.gif [hex-rays.com]) you've thought of and many you haven't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954598</id>
	<title>So what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264758120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>JWASM is a welcomed tool that supplements the entire x86 assembly language community...</i> </p><p>In Korea, only old people use assembler.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>JWASM is a welcomed tool that supplements the entire x86 assembly language community... In Korea , only old people use assembler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JWASM is a welcomed tool that supplements the entire x86 assembly language community... In Korea, only old people use assembler.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30957130</id>
	<title>Re:Hey that's great</title>
	<author>ChunderDownunder</author>
	<datestamp>1264769040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since you sound adventurous, <a href="http://www.jnode.org/node/180" title="jnode.org">these guys may be able to help</a> [jnode.org].<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since you sound adventurous , these guys may be able to help [ jnode.org ] .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since you sound adventurous, these guys may be able to help [jnode.org].
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30956182</id>
	<title>Re:Wikiwars</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1264764420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Be warned -- JWASM's Wikipedia article was nominated for deletion</p></div><p>And that right there's why I won't donate a penny to that project. Honestly, WTF? That article's source is about 13KB long. At $100/TB, it costs about 1/7800th of a penny to store. "But what if it clutters up the site!", say the Deletionists. Apparently there's an alternate front page to Wikipedia that lists every single article and it's critical that it be kept tidy and short.</p><p>Actually, I take that back: can I send Wikipedia a penny and sponsor a few thousand articles of my choosing, starting with this one?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Be warned -- JWASM 's Wikipedia article was nominated for deletionAnd that right there 's why I wo n't donate a penny to that project .
Honestly , WTF ?
That article 's source is about 13KB long .
At $ 100/TB , it costs about 1/7800th of a penny to store .
" But what if it clutters up the site !
" , say the Deletionists .
Apparently there 's an alternate front page to Wikipedia that lists every single article and it 's critical that it be kept tidy and short.Actually , I take that back : can I send Wikipedia a penny and sponsor a few thousand articles of my choosing , starting with this one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Be warned -- JWASM's Wikipedia article was nominated for deletionAnd that right there's why I won't donate a penny to that project.
Honestly, WTF?
That article's source is about 13KB long.
At $100/TB, it costs about 1/7800th of a penny to store.
"But what if it clutters up the site!
", say the Deletionists.
Apparently there's an alternate front page to Wikipedia that lists every single article and it's critical that it be kept tidy and short.Actually, I take that back: can I send Wikipedia a penny and sponsor a few thousand articles of my choosing, starting with this one?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955100</id>
	<title>LLVM</title>
	<author>eulernet</author>
	<datestamp>1264759800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Frankly, optimizing assembly code is a PITA, since there are so much different flavors.<br>For example, AMD and Intel processors have different types of optimization.</p><p>If I were to code in assembly nowadays, I'd prefer to use something like LLVM: <a href="http://llvm.org/" title="llvm.org">http://llvm.org/</a> [llvm.org] which should be able to generate good optimized code for any kind of processors, without the hassle of maintaining one routine per processor.</p><p>In some very extreme cases (like coding a RC5 decoder or multiprecision routines), it's still useful to use assembler, but in most other cases, I'm sure that LLVM is able to generate code much better than you could achieve manually in the same amount of time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly , optimizing assembly code is a PITA , since there are so much different flavors.For example , AMD and Intel processors have different types of optimization.If I were to code in assembly nowadays , I 'd prefer to use something like LLVM : http : //llvm.org/ [ llvm.org ] which should be able to generate good optimized code for any kind of processors , without the hassle of maintaining one routine per processor.In some very extreme cases ( like coding a RC5 decoder or multiprecision routines ) , it 's still useful to use assembler , but in most other cases , I 'm sure that LLVM is able to generate code much better than you could achieve manually in the same amount of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly, optimizing assembly code is a PITA, since there are so much different flavors.For example, AMD and Intel processors have different types of optimization.If I were to code in assembly nowadays, I'd prefer to use something like LLVM: http://llvm.org/ [llvm.org] which should be able to generate good optimized code for any kind of processors, without the hassle of maintaining one routine per processor.In some very extreme cases (like coding a RC5 decoder or multiprecision routines), it's still useful to use assembler, but in most other cases, I'm sure that LLVM is able to generate code much better than you could achieve manually in the same amount of time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30957956</id>
	<title>Re:Just for some perspective...</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1264773660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>VC2010 will fix this:
<a href="https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=371743&amp;wa=wsignin1.0" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=371743&amp;wa=wsignin1.0</a> [microsoft.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>VC2010 will fix this : https : //connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx ? FeedbackID = 371743&amp;wa = wsignin1.0 [ microsoft.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VC2010 will fix this:
https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=371743&amp;wa=wsignin1.0 [microsoft.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30953980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955022</id>
	<title>Re:xor my heart</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1264759560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It took me a minute to remember what CWD does, but it converts a word (AX) to a dword (dx:ax).</p><p>So, if AX is positive, you have this:</p><p><tt>dx:ax<br>0000:ax - cwd - zeros out DX<br>0000:ax - xor ax,dx - xors AX with 0000<br>0000:ax - sub ax,dx - subtracts 0 from AX</tt></p><p>Whereas, if it&rsquo;s negative, you have:</p><p><tt>dx:ax<br>FFFF:ax - cwd - fills DX with 1s<br>FFFF:~ax - xor ax,dx - takes the bitwise complement of AX<br>FFFF:(~ax)+1 - subtracts -1 from AX</tt></p><p>So in the end you have (~ax)+1, which is of course the absolute value of your original AX.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It took me a minute to remember what CWD does , but it converts a word ( AX ) to a dword ( dx : ax ) .So , if AX is positive , you have this : dx : ax0000 : ax - cwd - zeros out DX0000 : ax - xor ax,dx - xors AX with 00000000 : ax - sub ax,dx - subtracts 0 from AXWhereas , if it    s negative , you have : dx : axFFFF : ax - cwd - fills DX with 1sFFFF : ~ ax - xor ax,dx - takes the bitwise complement of AXFFFF : ( ~ ax ) + 1 - subtracts -1 from AXSo in the end you have ( ~ ax ) + 1 , which is of course the absolute value of your original AX .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It took me a minute to remember what CWD does, but it converts a word (AX) to a dword (dx:ax).So, if AX is positive, you have this:dx:ax0000:ax - cwd - zeros out DX0000:ax - xor ax,dx - xors AX with 00000000:ax - sub ax,dx - subtracts 0 from AXWhereas, if it’s negative, you have:dx:axFFFF:ax - cwd - fills DX with 1sFFFF:~ax - xor ax,dx - takes the bitwise complement of AXFFFF:(~ax)+1 - subtracts -1 from AXSo in the end you have (~ax)+1, which is of course the absolute value of your original AX.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30961934</id>
	<title>Re:Japheth's Other Projects!</title>
	<author>snemarch</author>
	<datestamp>1264864740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is (or well, was) more useful than it sounds at first: back in the days, you pretty much had two choices for 32bit dos-extended C++ programming. Either Watcom C++ (the de-facto standard), or Borland C++ with the dos-extender add-on pack (which didn't come default). Using a 3rd-party PE-console supporting dos extender (the first one I came about was WDOSX, well before HX) let you use whatever Win32-supporting compiler for producing 32bit dos apps, including Borland C++ <b>without</b> the dos-extender pack, Visual C++, et cetera.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is ( or well , was ) more useful than it sounds at first : back in the days , you pretty much had two choices for 32bit dos-extended C + + programming .
Either Watcom C + + ( the de-facto standard ) , or Borland C + + with the dos-extender add-on pack ( which did n't come default ) .
Using a 3rd-party PE-console supporting dos extender ( the first one I came about was WDOSX , well before HX ) let you use whatever Win32-supporting compiler for producing 32bit dos apps , including Borland C + + without the dos-extender pack , Visual C + + , et cetera .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is (or well, was) more useful than it sounds at first: back in the days, you pretty much had two choices for 32bit dos-extended C++ programming.
Either Watcom C++ (the de-facto standard), or Borland C++ with the dos-extender add-on pack (which didn't come default).
Using a 3rd-party PE-console supporting dos extender (the first one I came about was WDOSX, well before HX) let you use whatever Win32-supporting compiler for producing 32bit dos apps, including Borland C++ without the dos-extender pack, Visual C++, et cetera.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30962736</id>
	<title>Re:Wikiwars</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1264871220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is a disgrace Wikipedia isn't more inclusive. Who the hell has the authority to fix this? Sometimes it seems like the (seemingly) self-elected moderators run the show and delete what they please.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a disgrace Wikipedia is n't more inclusive .
Who the hell has the authority to fix this ?
Sometimes it seems like the ( seemingly ) self-elected moderators run the show and delete what they please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a disgrace Wikipedia isn't more inclusive.
Who the hell has the authority to fix this?
Sometimes it seems like the (seemingly) self-elected moderators run the show and delete what they please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30964882</id>
	<title>Re:Hey that's great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264884960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're not already written in Java?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're not already written in Java ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're not already written in Java?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954168</id>
	<title>JWASM?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264756440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>JISM!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>JISM !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JISM!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954794</id>
	<title>RTFA while you can. It's going to be deleted...</title>
	<author>stupido</author>
	<datestamp>1264758780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>from Wikipedia as "non-notable". It's already tagged for deletion there. The OP should get some award for posting a story with a link that will die on its own instead of the usual Slashdot Effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>from Wikipedia as " non-notable " .
It 's already tagged for deletion there .
The OP should get some award for posting a story with a link that will die on its own instead of the usual Slashdot Effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from Wikipedia as "non-notable".
It's already tagged for deletion there.
The OP should get some award for posting a story with a link that will die on its own instead of the usual Slashdot Effect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30960138</id>
	<title>Time to kiss the 70's goodbye</title>
	<author>sharp3</author>
	<datestamp>1264882740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pffft... Get out of here with this newfangled assembly.  Real men code in native binary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pffft... Get out of here with this newfangled assembly .
Real men code in native binary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pffft... Get out of here with this newfangled assembly.
Real men code in native binary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955264</id>
	<title>Re:why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264760460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microcontrollers, applications that interface directly with hardware (outside of the c world).. and just about everything that you don't program.<br>Before the web which seems to be your world, there was C, C++, and Assembler.  The two worked together, in a lot of cases.<br>Now, in todays world there are admittedly less desktop-based assembler coders.  That being said, assembler is widely used in non-desktop based situations for more customized situations.</p><p>Java, Ruby, HTTP/CGI are all interpreted. (in the case of a C cgi application, that's different)  Something else runs the interpreted code.  Assembler in it's rawest form is under everything, so to speak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microcontrollers , applications that interface directly with hardware ( outside of the c world ) .. and just about everything that you do n't program.Before the web which seems to be your world , there was C , C + + , and Assembler .
The two worked together , in a lot of cases.Now , in todays world there are admittedly less desktop-based assembler coders .
That being said , assembler is widely used in non-desktop based situations for more customized situations.Java , Ruby , HTTP/CGI are all interpreted .
( in the case of a C cgi application , that 's different ) Something else runs the interpreted code .
Assembler in it 's rawest form is under everything , so to speak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microcontrollers, applications that interface directly with hardware (outside of the c world).. and just about everything that you don't program.Before the web which seems to be your world, there was C, C++, and Assembler.
The two worked together, in a lot of cases.Now, in todays world there are admittedly less desktop-based assembler coders.
That being said, assembler is widely used in non-desktop based situations for more customized situations.Java, Ruby, HTTP/CGI are all interpreted.
(in the case of a C cgi application, that's different)  Something else runs the interpreted code.
Assembler in it's rawest form is under everything, so to speak.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30963134</id>
	<title>Re:why?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1264873980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C programs should better not assume a stack is available, what if they're compiled for a system that features no stack?</p><p>The basic problem is that C programs do not assume anything about low level hardware, because there are so few tools that can actually access things like registers, flags or stack directly. Simply because of the all important notion that C code is to be portable and that you must not assume those registers, flags or stack exist on that other platform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C programs should better not assume a stack is available , what if they 're compiled for a system that features no stack ? The basic problem is that C programs do not assume anything about low level hardware , because there are so few tools that can actually access things like registers , flags or stack directly .
Simply because of the all important notion that C code is to be portable and that you must not assume those registers , flags or stack exist on that other platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C programs should better not assume a stack is available, what if they're compiled for a system that features no stack?The basic problem is that C programs do not assume anything about low level hardware, because there are so few tools that can actually access things like registers, flags or stack directly.
Simply because of the all important notion that C code is to be portable and that you must not assume those registers, flags or stack exist on that other platform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954500</id>
	<title>Re:xor my heart</title>
	<author>P-Nuts</author>
	<datestamp>1264757700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's a bit cruel.  I had to look up CWD, but I presume there's not much need for it or it's CDQ/CQO brethren since the 16-bit days.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a bit cruel .
I had to look up CWD , but I presume there 's not much need for it or it 's CDQ/CQO brethren since the 16-bit days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a bit cruel.
I had to look up CWD, but I presume there's not much need for it or it's CDQ/CQO brethren since the 16-bit days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30981390</id>
	<title>Re:Japheth's Other Projects!</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1265040840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, you can now run DOSBox under DOS</p></div><p>I don&rsquo;t have DOS, I only have Windows. Can I run DOSBox under DOS with the HX DOS Extender in DOSBox under Windows?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , you can now run DOSBox under DOSI don    t have DOS , I only have Windows .
Can I run DOSBox under DOS with the HX DOS Extender in DOSBox under Windows ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, you can now run DOSBox under DOSI don’t have DOS, I only have Windows.
Can I run DOSBox under DOS with the HX DOS Extender in DOSBox under Windows?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30964750</id>
	<title>Re:xor my heart</title>
	<author>x2A</author>
	<datestamp>1264884120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>aww did it hurt your poor little eyes, did having to move them around so much leave you out of breath? Go take a jog or something, fatty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>aww did it hurt your poor little eyes , did having to move them around so much leave you out of breath ?
Go take a jog or something , fatty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>aww did it hurt your poor little eyes, did having to move them around so much leave you out of breath?
Go take a jog or something, fatty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955614</id>
	<title>Re:Who needs JWASM?</title>
	<author>Tumbleweed</author>
	<datestamp>1264761900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>JWASM</i></p><p>JWASM is JaWa-asm, and is very useful for programming droids (the non-cellphone kind).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>JWASMJWASM is JaWa-asm , and is very useful for programming droids ( the non-cellphone kind ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JWASMJWASM is JaWa-asm, and is very useful for programming droids (the non-cellphone kind).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954442</id>
	<title>Watcom, I cry for thee.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264757460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still weep slightly when I think of Watcom and their products. They were, by far, among the best out there in the 1980s and early 1990s. I mean, they made Borland's offerings look like garbage, and Borland was pretty damn good at that time, too.</p><p>Their assembler and C and C++ compilers were fucking amazing. Nobody generated faster code than them. I remember once moving some code from Microsoft's C++ compiler to Borland C++, and getting a 5 times speedup. Then we moved it from Borland C++ to Watcom C++, and got an additional 8 times speed improvement! We were totally blown away. Their code generator was just that much better than that of much larger competitors.</p><p>Watcom SQL was another gem. So much faster than the competition, but also so much easier to use and develop for. It's good to know that Sybase has kept this product alive and well.</p><p>To see such a small shop create some high-quality products is truly a testament to the fantastic talent that they had working there. It saddened me greatly to see them consumed by Powersoft, and then Sybase.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still weep slightly when I think of Watcom and their products .
They were , by far , among the best out there in the 1980s and early 1990s .
I mean , they made Borland 's offerings look like garbage , and Borland was pretty damn good at that time , too.Their assembler and C and C + + compilers were fucking amazing .
Nobody generated faster code than them .
I remember once moving some code from Microsoft 's C + + compiler to Borland C + + , and getting a 5 times speedup .
Then we moved it from Borland C + + to Watcom C + + , and got an additional 8 times speed improvement !
We were totally blown away .
Their code generator was just that much better than that of much larger competitors.Watcom SQL was another gem .
So much faster than the competition , but also so much easier to use and develop for .
It 's good to know that Sybase has kept this product alive and well.To see such a small shop create some high-quality products is truly a testament to the fantastic talent that they had working there .
It saddened me greatly to see them consumed by Powersoft , and then Sybase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still weep slightly when I think of Watcom and their products.
They were, by far, among the best out there in the 1980s and early 1990s.
I mean, they made Borland's offerings look like garbage, and Borland was pretty damn good at that time, too.Their assembler and C and C++ compilers were fucking amazing.
Nobody generated faster code than them.
I remember once moving some code from Microsoft's C++ compiler to Borland C++, and getting a 5 times speedup.
Then we moved it from Borland C++ to Watcom C++, and got an additional 8 times speed improvement!
We were totally blown away.
Their code generator was just that much better than that of much larger competitors.Watcom SQL was another gem.
So much faster than the competition, but also so much easier to use and develop for.
It's good to know that Sybase has kept this product alive and well.To see such a small shop create some high-quality products is truly a testament to the fantastic talent that they had working there.
It saddened me greatly to see them consumed by Powersoft, and then Sybase.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30976028</id>
	<title>Re:jello stacking</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1264946580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> we consistently got 30\% reduction in code size, which on a 640KB machine is not to be sneezed at.</p></div><p>Nah..... too easy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we consistently got 30 \ % reduction in code size , which on a 640KB machine is not to be sneezed at.Nah..... too easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> we consistently got 30\% reduction in code size, which on a 640KB machine is not to be sneezed at.Nah..... too easy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958916</id>
	<title>Re:why?</title>
	<author>Nightspirit</author>
	<datestamp>1264781700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NOD32 (one of the faster antivirus programs for windows) uses assembly for speed reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NOD32 ( one of the faster antivirus programs for windows ) uses assembly for speed reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NOD32 (one of the faster antivirus programs for windows) uses assembly for speed reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958654</id>
	<title>Re:Just for some perspective...</title>
	<author>larpon</author>
	<datestamp>1264779540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>f*** youuuu dolphin!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>f * * * youuuu dolphin !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>f*** youuuu dolphin!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30953980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30956714</id>
	<title>Re:why?</title>
	<author>EzInKy</author>
	<datestamp>1264766640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In addition to what others have said, it's helpful for compiler programmers to have a little knowledge of assembler too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition to what others have said , it 's helpful for compiler programmers to have a little knowledge of assembler too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition to what others have said, it's helpful for compiler programmers to have a little knowledge of assembler too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30963008</id>
	<title>Re:xor my heart</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1264873260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I feel your pain. I'm in a similar position, but it's even a bit more specialized. I need people who have experience with reverse engineering and no criminal background (i.e. are not only good reversing...). And are available. And that includes being able to read and understand asm code written by someone else. Worse, asm code that a disassembler created. Which is mostly straightforward, granted, since high level languages create fairly easy assembler code. Still, there's always that odd debugger trap and a few knuckleballs thrown at you during analysis that you have to be able to dodge.</p><p>My favorite question (and I'm sure it will make my troll emerge from the depths again since he always surfaces when I get that example online at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.) is still</p><p>pop ebx<br>inc ebx<br>push ebx<br>retn</p><p>What would it do? Note that it is not a standalone snippet but a subroutine call'ed by the main program (which the retn alone should give away, but I usually tell an applicant). It's a fairly easy snippet and you encounter such stack manipulation tricks a lot. Sometimes nested a few times with a few registers popped and only the last one maniuplated, but it shows me immediately if the applicant knows a bit about subroutines in assembler and how they are handled by the x86 CPU.</p><p>About your example, I have to admit, I'd have had to look up the way cwd works. It might surprise you, but even though I have to use asm on an almost daily base, it has been quite a long while since I encountered a cwd, probably because dwords can be handled much easier today. popads are more common in my field of work, and knowing in what order the registers are filled is probably more important for me than to know an instruction that died out when 32bit became the norm.</p><p>Ok, that was unfair. Died out is probably wrong to say in a langugage that only exists anymore in very specialized fields and for special cases. I could not really see a sensible use in a modern CPU able to handle dwords natively in its registers, but maybe there is an application for the field you're in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel your pain .
I 'm in a similar position , but it 's even a bit more specialized .
I need people who have experience with reverse engineering and no criminal background ( i.e .
are not only good reversing... ) .
And are available .
And that includes being able to read and understand asm code written by someone else .
Worse , asm code that a disassembler created .
Which is mostly straightforward , granted , since high level languages create fairly easy assembler code .
Still , there 's always that odd debugger trap and a few knuckleballs thrown at you during analysis that you have to be able to dodge.My favorite question ( and I 'm sure it will make my troll emerge from the depths again since he always surfaces when I get that example online at / .
) is stillpop ebxinc ebxpush ebxretnWhat would it do ?
Note that it is not a standalone snippet but a subroutine call'ed by the main program ( which the retn alone should give away , but I usually tell an applicant ) .
It 's a fairly easy snippet and you encounter such stack manipulation tricks a lot .
Sometimes nested a few times with a few registers popped and only the last one maniuplated , but it shows me immediately if the applicant knows a bit about subroutines in assembler and how they are handled by the x86 CPU.About your example , I have to admit , I 'd have had to look up the way cwd works .
It might surprise you , but even though I have to use asm on an almost daily base , it has been quite a long while since I encountered a cwd , probably because dwords can be handled much easier today .
popads are more common in my field of work , and knowing in what order the registers are filled is probably more important for me than to know an instruction that died out when 32bit became the norm.Ok , that was unfair .
Died out is probably wrong to say in a langugage that only exists anymore in very specialized fields and for special cases .
I could not really see a sensible use in a modern CPU able to handle dwords natively in its registers , but maybe there is an application for the field you 're in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel your pain.
I'm in a similar position, but it's even a bit more specialized.
I need people who have experience with reverse engineering and no criminal background (i.e.
are not only good reversing...).
And are available.
And that includes being able to read and understand asm code written by someone else.
Worse, asm code that a disassembler created.
Which is mostly straightforward, granted, since high level languages create fairly easy assembler code.
Still, there's always that odd debugger trap and a few knuckleballs thrown at you during analysis that you have to be able to dodge.My favorite question (and I'm sure it will make my troll emerge from the depths again since he always surfaces when I get that example online at /.
) is stillpop ebxinc ebxpush ebxretnWhat would it do?
Note that it is not a standalone snippet but a subroutine call'ed by the main program (which the retn alone should give away, but I usually tell an applicant).
It's a fairly easy snippet and you encounter such stack manipulation tricks a lot.
Sometimes nested a few times with a few registers popped and only the last one maniuplated, but it shows me immediately if the applicant knows a bit about subroutines in assembler and how they are handled by the x86 CPU.About your example, I have to admit, I'd have had to look up the way cwd works.
It might surprise you, but even though I have to use asm on an almost daily base, it has been quite a long while since I encountered a cwd, probably because dwords can be handled much easier today.
popads are more common in my field of work, and knowing in what order the registers are filled is probably more important for me than to know an instruction that died out when 32bit became the norm.Ok, that was unfair.
Died out is probably wrong to say in a langugage that only exists anymore in very specialized fields and for special cases.
I could not really see a sensible use in a modern CPU able to handle dwords natively in its registers, but maybe there is an application for the field you're in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30957968</id>
	<title>Re:xor my heart</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264773720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And then I get to watch the color drain from your face when I tell you that:</p><p>xor ax, ax<br>cwd<br>xor ax,dx<br>sub ax,dx</p><p>results in zero, and that your code is relying on a non-zero value in the AX register in order to do anything useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And then I get to watch the color drain from your face when I tell you that : xor ax , axcwdxor ax,dxsub ax,dxresults in zero , and that your code is relying on a non-zero value in the AX register in order to do anything useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then I get to watch the color drain from your face when I tell you that:xor ax, axcwdxor ax,dxsub ax,dxresults in zero, and that your code is relying on a non-zero value in the AX register in order to do anything useful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30956082</id>
	<title>Re:xor my heart</title>
	<author>RicktheBrick</author>
	<datestamp>1264764060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the year 1973 I was employed by a  company called Cascade Data.  It was located in Cascade Michigan which was close to Grand Rapids.  I was a computer programmer at the time.  They manufactured computers that started with 16k bytes of magnetic core memory and could be double to 32k.  They had a 5 Megabyte hard drive but most used a tape drive for storage.  Input was from a typewriter like device as one would type in on a keyboard and the output was on paper.  I wrote programs in both RPG and assembly languages.  The computer was an eight bit processor so the registers were eight bits.  This meant that the maximum number that a register could hold was 255.  Just adding two numbers was fun since one would have to do add the least significant byte of one to its least significant byte of the other and than check for overflow and continue with the next byte.  There were no multiply or divide instruction.  To multiple 19 times 20 one would add 19 to a register 20 times.  To divide 200 by 20 one would subtract 20 from 200 until one got a zero or negative number.  It was not that much fun to program in assembly language but your program always took about half the memory that a RPG program did and with only 16k bytes of memory on some system, some programs just needed to be written in assembly.  Unfortunately for me the company did not last very long as I was employed for only 6 months.  The country fell into another recession and I got tired of looking for work so I went into the military.  Today a 64 bit register will hold a number of 1.84 X 10 raised to the 19th power or at least 18 significant bytes so even the national debt would fit into one register.  So it must be a little bit easier to program today than it was in 1973.  After, I was asked to modify a existing program by one of their customers.  They gave me two big boxes of computer cards and a printout of the program.  I had to find the place where I wanted to modify the program and remove and replace the cards I needed to.  Unfortunately two of the cards got interchanged and some time was spent troubleshooting it to locate the problem.  I can only laugh when I think about it and how much easier it is today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the year 1973 I was employed by a company called Cascade Data .
It was located in Cascade Michigan which was close to Grand Rapids .
I was a computer programmer at the time .
They manufactured computers that started with 16k bytes of magnetic core memory and could be double to 32k .
They had a 5 Megabyte hard drive but most used a tape drive for storage .
Input was from a typewriter like device as one would type in on a keyboard and the output was on paper .
I wrote programs in both RPG and assembly languages .
The computer was an eight bit processor so the registers were eight bits .
This meant that the maximum number that a register could hold was 255 .
Just adding two numbers was fun since one would have to do add the least significant byte of one to its least significant byte of the other and than check for overflow and continue with the next byte .
There were no multiply or divide instruction .
To multiple 19 times 20 one would add 19 to a register 20 times .
To divide 200 by 20 one would subtract 20 from 200 until one got a zero or negative number .
It was not that much fun to program in assembly language but your program always took about half the memory that a RPG program did and with only 16k bytes of memory on some system , some programs just needed to be written in assembly .
Unfortunately for me the company did not last very long as I was employed for only 6 months .
The country fell into another recession and I got tired of looking for work so I went into the military .
Today a 64 bit register will hold a number of 1.84 X 10 raised to the 19th power or at least 18 significant bytes so even the national debt would fit into one register .
So it must be a little bit easier to program today than it was in 1973 .
After , I was asked to modify a existing program by one of their customers .
They gave me two big boxes of computer cards and a printout of the program .
I had to find the place where I wanted to modify the program and remove and replace the cards I needed to .
Unfortunately two of the cards got interchanged and some time was spent troubleshooting it to locate the problem .
I can only laugh when I think about it and how much easier it is today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the year 1973 I was employed by a  company called Cascade Data.
It was located in Cascade Michigan which was close to Grand Rapids.
I was a computer programmer at the time.
They manufactured computers that started with 16k bytes of magnetic core memory and could be double to 32k.
They had a 5 Megabyte hard drive but most used a tape drive for storage.
Input was from a typewriter like device as one would type in on a keyboard and the output was on paper.
I wrote programs in both RPG and assembly languages.
The computer was an eight bit processor so the registers were eight bits.
This meant that the maximum number that a register could hold was 255.
Just adding two numbers was fun since one would have to do add the least significant byte of one to its least significant byte of the other and than check for overflow and continue with the next byte.
There were no multiply or divide instruction.
To multiple 19 times 20 one would add 19 to a register 20 times.
To divide 200 by 20 one would subtract 20 from 200 until one got a zero or negative number.
It was not that much fun to program in assembly language but your program always took about half the memory that a RPG program did and with only 16k bytes of memory on some system, some programs just needed to be written in assembly.
Unfortunately for me the company did not last very long as I was employed for only 6 months.
The country fell into another recession and I got tired of looking for work so I went into the military.
Today a 64 bit register will hold a number of 1.84 X 10 raised to the 19th power or at least 18 significant bytes so even the national debt would fit into one register.
So it must be a little bit easier to program today than it was in 1973.
After, I was asked to modify a existing program by one of their customers.
They gave me two big boxes of computer cards and a printout of the program.
I had to find the place where I wanted to modify the program and remove and replace the cards I needed to.
Unfortunately two of the cards got interchanged and some time was spent troubleshooting it to locate the problem.
I can only laugh when I think about it and how much easier it is today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30956670</id>
	<title>Re:xor my heart</title>
	<author>null8</author>
	<datestamp>1264766460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's the 16bit abs() in x86. There are some variations on that, like

cwd
add ax, dx
xor ax, dx

I think the version you've written is patented by some russion guy at SUN,
anyway, the fact, that you used 16bit version tells me you finished your colledge a while ago, since it a popular task in ours.
Whe have to learn some x86 asm and do some primitive buffer overflow exploits at our university.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the 16bit abs ( ) in x86 .
There are some variations on that , like cwd add ax , dx xor ax , dx I think the version you 've written is patented by some russion guy at SUN , anyway , the fact , that you used 16bit version tells me you finished your colledge a while ago , since it a popular task in ours .
Whe have to learn some x86 asm and do some primitive buffer overflow exploits at our university .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the 16bit abs() in x86.
There are some variations on that, like

cwd
add ax, dx
xor ax, dx

I think the version you've written is patented by some russion guy at SUN,
anyway, the fact, that you used 16bit version tells me you finished your colledge a while ago, since it a popular task in ours.
Whe have to learn some x86 asm and do some primitive buffer overflow exploits at our university.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955892</id>
	<title>Re:xor my heart</title>
	<author>goga\_russian</author>
	<datestamp>1264763280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NOT al
INC al

rocket-launch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NOT al INC al rocket-launch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NOT al
INC al

rocket-launch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954890</id>
	<title>Re:why?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1264759080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not everything is exposed to C.  C is designed for PDP-11s.  It doesn't have any of the more advanced CPU features.  If you want to use any privileged instructions (required for writing an OS), if you want to use SIMD units, if you want to use things like population count instructions, then you can't use portable C.</p><p>
This doesn't always mean that you have to use assembly.  Most instructions are exposed via platform-specific intrinsic functions.  The code generator in the C compiler will handle register allocation for you, but will use the correct instruction.  Often these also come with fall-back for other platforms (e.g. call a library function to swap byte order if there is no BSWAP instruction). </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not everything is exposed to C. C is designed for PDP-11s .
It does n't have any of the more advanced CPU features .
If you want to use any privileged instructions ( required for writing an OS ) , if you want to use SIMD units , if you want to use things like population count instructions , then you ca n't use portable C . This does n't always mean that you have to use assembly .
Most instructions are exposed via platform-specific intrinsic functions .
The code generator in the C compiler will handle register allocation for you , but will use the correct instruction .
Often these also come with fall-back for other platforms ( e.g .
call a library function to swap byte order if there is no BSWAP instruction ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not everything is exposed to C.  C is designed for PDP-11s.
It doesn't have any of the more advanced CPU features.
If you want to use any privileged instructions (required for writing an OS), if you want to use SIMD units, if you want to use things like population count instructions, then you can't use portable C.
This doesn't always mean that you have to use assembly.
Most instructions are exposed via platform-specific intrinsic functions.
The code generator in the C compiler will handle register allocation for you, but will use the correct instruction.
Often these also come with fall-back for other platforms (e.g.
call a library function to swap byte order if there is no BSWAP instruction). </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958026</id>
	<title>Re:I'll ask it</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1264774140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FASM is another cross-architecture assembler, but with an interesting philosophy. Everything you need to compile something is stored inside the files.</p><p>There's none of this <i>gcc.exe --[4 lines and 900 characters of garbage resolving dependancies and changing settings]</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FASM is another cross-architecture assembler , but with an interesting philosophy .
Everything you need to compile something is stored inside the files.There 's none of this gcc.exe -- [ 4 lines and 900 characters of garbage resolving dependancies and changing settings ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FASM is another cross-architecture assembler, but with an interesting philosophy.
Everything you need to compile something is stored inside the files.There's none of this gcc.exe --[4 lines and 900 characters of garbage resolving dependancies and changing settings]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954722</id>
	<title>In Soviet Russia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264758480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>JWASM assembles you!</htmltext>
<tokenext>JWASM assembles you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JWASM assembles you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954590</id>
	<title>Re:xor my heart</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264758060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never done anything really big in assembler but I'd say cwd is somewhat obscure thing, poor kid.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) I'd rather check if they understand what and how lea does, or some basic non-obvious test stuff.</p><p>([spoiler] So, am I completely stupid or is the snippet abs()?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never done anything really big in assembler but I 'd say cwd is somewhat obscure thing , poor kid .
: ) I 'd rather check if they understand what and how lea does , or some basic non-obvious test stuff .
( [ spoiler ] So , am I completely stupid or is the snippet abs ( ) ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never done anything really big in assembler but I'd say cwd is somewhat obscure thing, poor kid.
:) I'd rather check if they understand what and how lea does, or some basic non-obvious test stuff.
([spoiler] So, am I completely stupid or is the snippet abs()?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30962842</id>
	<title>Pedant mode ON</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264872060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>can elucidate me</p></div><p>Elucidate applies to the subject here - which is not you.  So someone would elucidate the difference <i>for</i> you, but they would not elucidate <i>you</i>. You would not say "make clear me", nor should you say "elucidate me".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>can elucidate meElucidate applies to the subject here - which is not you .
So someone would elucidate the difference for you , but they would not elucidate you .
You would not say " make clear me " , nor should you say " elucidate me " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can elucidate meElucidate applies to the subject here - which is not you.
So someone would elucidate the difference for you, but they would not elucidate you.
You would not say "make clear me", nor should you say "elucidate me".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30957350</id>
	<title>Re:Excited x86 assembly developers</title>
	<author>Win Hill</author>
	<datestamp>1264770000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I for one am delighted to hear this news, and appreciate the posting by Odoital.  The wags here who have trash-talked assembly-language programming are not fans of small machines, doing small, dedicated and often time-constrained tasks on low-performance x86 processors.

The right tool for the right job.  There are places where MASM was the right tool, then WASM, and now JWASM.

As a hardware engineer, I run into these places all the time.  For example, say I want to take an inexpensive processor and turn it into 16-unit PWM (pulse-width-modulation) engine.  The PWM resolution and frequency I can achieve will directly related to how tightly I can predict and control the processor, instruction by instruction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one am delighted to hear this news , and appreciate the posting by Odoital .
The wags here who have trash-talked assembly-language programming are not fans of small machines , doing small , dedicated and often time-constrained tasks on low-performance x86 processors .
The right tool for the right job .
There are places where MASM was the right tool , then WASM , and now JWASM .
As a hardware engineer , I run into these places all the time .
For example , say I want to take an inexpensive processor and turn it into 16-unit PWM ( pulse-width-modulation ) engine .
The PWM resolution and frequency I can achieve will directly related to how tightly I can predict and control the processor , instruction by instruction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one am delighted to hear this news, and appreciate the posting by Odoital.
The wags here who have trash-talked assembly-language programming are not fans of small machines, doing small, dedicated and often time-constrained tasks on low-performance x86 processors.
The right tool for the right job.
There are places where MASM was the right tool, then WASM, and now JWASM.
As a hardware engineer, I run into these places all the time.
For example, say I want to take an inexpensive processor and turn it into 16-unit PWM (pulse-width-modulation) engine.
The PWM resolution and frequency I can achieve will directly related to how tightly I can predict and control the processor, instruction by instruction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954034</id>
	<title>xor my heart</title>
	<author>RabidOverYou</author>
	<datestamp>1264755840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I loved saying in an interview "I see you have x86 assembler on your resume".  The color drains from the kid's face, I give 'em a snippet:<br> <br>

cwd<br>
xor ax,dx<br>
sub ax,dx<br>
<br>
It's nothing rocket, just some fun with 2s-complement.<br>
<br>
-- Rabid</htmltext>
<tokenext>I loved saying in an interview " I see you have x86 assembler on your resume " .
The color drains from the kid 's face , I give 'em a snippet : cwd xor ax,dx sub ax,dx It 's nothing rocket , just some fun with 2s-complement .
-- Rabid</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I loved saying in an interview "I see you have x86 assembler on your resume".
The color drains from the kid's face, I give 'em a snippet: 

cwd
xor ax,dx
sub ax,dx

It's nothing rocket, just some fun with 2s-complement.
-- Rabid</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30963302</id>
	<title>Re:Hey that's great</title>
	<author>eugene\_roux</author>
	<datestamp>1264874940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Huh?!<br><br>I thought they already were!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?
! I thought they already were !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?
!I thought they already were!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30956156</id>
	<title>marketing promo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264764300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This story has only been submitted as a last-ditch attempt to argue for the company's notability on Wikipedia.  As such, I encourage slashdot to take down the article as it is a marketing-promo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This story has only been submitted as a last-ditch attempt to argue for the company 's notability on Wikipedia .
As such , I encourage slashdot to take down the article as it is a marketing-promo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This story has only been submitted as a last-ditch attempt to argue for the company's notability on Wikipedia.
As such, I encourage slashdot to take down the article as it is a marketing-promo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30953980</id>
	<title>Just for some perspective...</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1264755660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To know how abandoned MASM really is... try and make an assembler project in 64 bit under Visual Studio 2008.  It's not even supported out of the box - like, they never actually tested the configuration.</p><p>But, for all that, I prefer YASM as the assembler.  Still, congrats to the OpenWatcom port.. NICE WORK. It's always good to have more hands in an area that so many people see as dead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To know how abandoned MASM really is... try and make an assembler project in 64 bit under Visual Studio 2008 .
It 's not even supported out of the box - like , they never actually tested the configuration.But , for all that , I prefer YASM as the assembler .
Still , congrats to the OpenWatcom port.. NICE WORK .
It 's always good to have more hands in an area that so many people see as dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To know how abandoned MASM really is... try and make an assembler project in 64 bit under Visual Studio 2008.
It's not even supported out of the box - like, they never actually tested the configuration.But, for all that, I prefer YASM as the assembler.
Still, congrats to the OpenWatcom port.. NICE WORK.
It's always good to have more hands in an area that so many people see as dead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958058</id>
	<title>Re:Wikiwars</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1264774440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Articles about old hardware often get deleted too. Socket A motherboards and stuff.  I've seen articles on older cellphone SoCs and their companies vanish as well. Apparently never getting large and then finally going out of business means you don't deserve to be noted in history.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Articles about old hardware often get deleted too .
Socket A motherboards and stuff .
I 've seen articles on older cellphone SoCs and their companies vanish as well .
Apparently never getting large and then finally going out of business means you do n't deserve to be noted in history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Articles about old hardware often get deleted too.
Socket A motherboards and stuff.
I've seen articles on older cellphone SoCs and their companies vanish as well.
Apparently never getting large and then finally going out of business means you don't deserve to be noted in history.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30956182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30961058</id>
	<title>Re:And how does it differ ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264853340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MASM is nice but syntactically inconsistent and has "features" that automatically substitute equivalent opcodes to give you the "better" one which it assumes you want, whereas NASM is rigidly consistent and produces *exactly* what you ask for even if it would be trivial to do it better.  Otherwise the two are very, very similar, though personally I prefer NASM for the consistency (obviously YMMV).  Sorry can't help with AT&amp;T - one look at sample code had me running screaming for the door.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MASM is nice but syntactically inconsistent and has " features " that automatically substitute equivalent opcodes to give you the " better " one which it assumes you want , whereas NASM is rigidly consistent and produces * exactly * what you ask for even if it would be trivial to do it better .
Otherwise the two are very , very similar , though personally I prefer NASM for the consistency ( obviously YMMV ) .
Sorry ca n't help with AT&amp;T - one look at sample code had me running screaming for the door .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MASM is nice but syntactically inconsistent and has "features" that automatically substitute equivalent opcodes to give you the "better" one which it assumes you want, whereas NASM is rigidly consistent and produces *exactly* what you ask for even if it would be trivial to do it better.
Otherwise the two are very, very similar, though personally I prefer NASM for the consistency (obviously YMMV).
Sorry can't help with AT&amp;T - one look at sample code had me running screaming for the door.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954932</id>
	<title>Re:xor my heart</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1264759260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you hire people who need to know obscure bits of x86 asm often, or is this just a way of catching people who exaggerate on their CVs?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you hire people who need to know obscure bits of x86 asm often , or is this just a way of catching people who exaggerate on their CVs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you hire people who need to know obscure bits of x86 asm often, or is this just a way of catching people who exaggerate on their CVs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30960022</id>
	<title>Re:Just for some perspective...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264794780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt that you actually program in assembler, but I am quite certain that the curtains your rather stern looking wife picked out for your rented home have little swastikas on them. Love and kisses from your gay admirer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt that you actually program in assembler , but I am quite certain that the curtains your rather stern looking wife picked out for your rented home have little swastikas on them .
Love and kisses from your gay admirer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt that you actually program in assembler, but I am quite certain that the curtains your rather stern looking wife picked out for your rented home have little swastikas on them.
Love and kisses from your gay admirer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30953980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958002</id>
	<title>Re:Hey that's great</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1264773960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let's write some nVidia drivers in Java!</p></div><p>They'd probably run faster or better. I can't count the number of engines that have trouble with nVidia multi-threaded rendering. (Source, for example) Java would chug memory, but at least it's reliable.</p><p>You'd probably need to static compile it, though.</p><p><a href="http://www.excelsior-usa.com/jetinternals.html" title="excelsior-usa.com">http://www.excelsior-usa.com/jetinternals.html</a> [excelsior-usa.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's write some nVidia drivers in Java ! They 'd probably run faster or better .
I ca n't count the number of engines that have trouble with nVidia multi-threaded rendering .
( Source , for example ) Java would chug memory , but at least it 's reliable.You 'd probably need to static compile it , though.http : //www.excelsior-usa.com/jetinternals.html [ excelsior-usa.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's write some nVidia drivers in Java!They'd probably run faster or better.
I can't count the number of engines that have trouble with nVidia multi-threaded rendering.
(Source, for example) Java would chug memory, but at least it's reliable.You'd probably need to static compile it, though.http://www.excelsior-usa.com/jetinternals.html [excelsior-usa.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958106</id>
	<title>Re:That's good news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264774800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't need the pusha/popa OR the NOP.  And you forgot to load dx with the message offset!  No soup for you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't need the pusha/popa OR the NOP .
And you forgot to load dx with the message offset !
No soup for you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't need the pusha/popa OR the NOP.
And you forgot to load dx with the message offset!
No soup for you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954052</id>
	<title>Japheth's Other Projects!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264755960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Japheth has a number of rather interesting projects that extend the functionality of DOS.</p><p>JEMM, which is his EMM386 replacement: http://www.japheth.de/Jemm.html<br>HX DOS Extender, which adds Win32 PE &amp; basic API support to DOS to allow the execution of a whole array of apps: http://www.japheth.de/HX.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Japheth has a number of rather interesting projects that extend the functionality of DOS.JEMM , which is his EMM386 replacement : http : //www.japheth.de/Jemm.htmlHX DOS Extender , which adds Win32 PE &amp; basic API support to DOS to allow the execution of a whole array of apps : http : //www.japheth.de/HX.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Japheth has a number of rather interesting projects that extend the functionality of DOS.JEMM, which is his EMM386 replacement: http://www.japheth.de/Jemm.htmlHX DOS Extender, which adds Win32 PE &amp; basic API support to DOS to allow the execution of a whole array of apps: http://www.japheth.de/HX.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30962200</id>
	<title>Re:Hey that's great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264867020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>5fps? thats great allright... Whats next operating systems in PHP?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>5fps ?
thats great allright... Whats next operating systems in PHP ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5fps?
thats great allright... Whats next operating systems in PHP?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954494</id>
	<title>Excited x86 assembly developers</title>
	<author>yorgasor</author>
	<datestamp>1264757700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"January 2010 is an exciting month for x86 assembly language developers"</p><p>Somehow I have a hard time imagining a bunch of x86 assembly programmers getting excited.  I've done assembly on a lot of different architectures, and I can't say "excitement" was ever a term I'd use to describe any emotions related to it.</p><p>"Oh wow!  There's a new tool that might make some poor saps lives suck slightly less!  This is such an awesome month!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" January 2010 is an exciting month for x86 assembly language developers " Somehow I have a hard time imagining a bunch of x86 assembly programmers getting excited .
I 've done assembly on a lot of different architectures , and I ca n't say " excitement " was ever a term I 'd use to describe any emotions related to it .
" Oh wow !
There 's a new tool that might make some poor saps lives suck slightly less !
This is such an awesome month !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"January 2010 is an exciting month for x86 assembly language developers"Somehow I have a hard time imagining a bunch of x86 assembly programmers getting excited.
I've done assembly on a lot of different architectures, and I can't say "excitement" was ever a term I'd use to describe any emotions related to it.
"Oh wow!
There's a new tool that might make some poor saps lives suck slightly less!
This is such an awesome month!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954426</id>
	<title>High level languages :P</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264757400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is 2010. Computers are fast enough for you to leave assembler and pick up a more modern environment, such as C.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is 2010 .
Computers are fast enough for you to leave assembler and pick up a more modern environment , such as C .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is 2010.
Computers are fast enough for you to leave assembler and pick up a more modern environment, such as C.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30960022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30953980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30963302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30964750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30956082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30959162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30957226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30981128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30957968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30956670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30963134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30961300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30956182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30981390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30961058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30962200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30962288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30964882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30962736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30956182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30960924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30957956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30953980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30953980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30962842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30957350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30965300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30963008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30962036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30956714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30961934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30957528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30957130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30957746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30953980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30976028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_29_1632253_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_1632253.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30960138
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_1632253.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30965300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30961058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30962842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_1632253.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_1632253.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30956082
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958090
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30964750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30957968
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30981128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30956670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30959162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30957746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30963008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30957528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_1632253.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30957182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_1632253.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30953980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30957956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30960022
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_1632253.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30959240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_1632253.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_1632253.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_1632253.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30961852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_1632253.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30981390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30961934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_1632253.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30962288
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_1632253.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_1632253.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_1632253.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30962036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958102
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30963134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30956714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955884
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_1632253.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30956182
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958058
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30962736
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30961300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_1632253.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30957350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_1632253.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30957130
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30962200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30963302
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30964882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_1632253.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_1632253.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30960924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30957226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_1632253.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_1632253.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30954442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30976028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30958344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_29_1632253.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_29_1632253.30955050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
