matt c

Sorry it took so long for a response.

You might want to pick just one assembler
to learn with. Masm has the most support,
and examples. But Fasm is the easiest to setup
and use (in my opinion).

Well, you download it and install it.
This contains all the do***entation\examples\tools
for the windows platform programming environment.
The total sdk size is about ~266mb, BUT, you can download
it in 25mb pieces. So it would help to have a fast internet
connection. the Link is: http://www.microsoft.com/msdownload/platformsdk/sdkupdate/XPSP2FULLInstall.htm


most of the assembly code, is poorly commented,
[my examples too =*). ]
I hate to say. The Iczelion's Tutorials are probably
the best place to start if your going to program for
windows. the code use's the masm compiler.
Here is the link: http://win32asm.cjb.net/

Not really, thanks to Fasm, and Masm, windows
assembly isn't that much harder at all. Once you learn
the basics, window creation and text output.
See the Iczelion's Tutorials link above.

I'll look and see if I can find you. Hang in there,
Windows programming will take a while to get the
hang of. Even with the knowledge I have I'm just
scratching the surface. Just go slow, take your time,
and enjoy the ride!!!

jgcasey

Well I cannot download all that, I have a limited
connection. Anyway I noticed the assembler Windows
examples seemed to compile with whatever include
files came with the tutorials?

Also the C tutorials, which I thought might be an easier
way to learn Windows programming, also compile without
anything being downloaded? [...]

Iczelion's Tutorials really assume a knowledge
of Windows programming ( presumably via C ) and
a knowledge of the high level directives used
by MASM which weren't in the MASM DOS code that
I learnt to program assembler DOS with. [...]


As there are no tutorials to teach assembler
Windows programming I will have to learn it
using C, after which will I have any incentive
to ever use assembler again?

I just started with Windows and C today and the
difference between that and trying to get started
with Windows and Assembler were like night and
day in terms of how easy it was. I didn't have
to worry about different assembler syntax, nor
the setting of pathways or finding any other
stuff to make it all work! Build All... Run!

Cheers,

John Casey

matt c

I was in the same boat you are now, I programmed in dos assembly
until the year 2001 or so. Once Windows XP and DirectX 9.0 Came
out it convinced me once and for all to abandon DOS permanently.
If you feel better programming in c/c++ then do it. I've had to learn
c/c++ too, just so I could translate the code and make myself some
examples other than the standard simple examples. I guess it's just a
case of how much extra homework your willing to do, and if you want
to make a job out of your hobby you will most likely HAVE to know
c/c++. But learning assembly language is a nice plus, even if your
only going to program in your Visual C/C++ environment. If you get
stuck setting up the assembler environment or c/c++ conversion Just
ask around on the forums (like this one) and the answer should pop up
eventually. About the SDK, even if your going to program in c/c++
you still should have this, This gives you all the information you
need for API calls to kernel, gdi, and all other windows API's.
I can send you a copy if you like, all I need is an address, and I'll
throw in the DirectX SDK as well.
I guess thats it. Matt

jgcasey

I was able to continue with dos thanks to WDosX that
gave me easy access to above 1Meg memory and thus
I could make full use of the 32bit instructions and
I didn't stop assembly until about six years ago.
Since than I have used dos C, dabbled without real
success with VC++ mfc and recently tried Java which
appears to have real promise for the hobbyist.


It will always only be a hobby. My time is limited
and that is the biggest obstacle. Learning dos
assembler was made simple by the fact dos was simple.
Windows is a different ball game and is not so much
about learning assembler, which essentially I know,
but rather learning how to work in a complex os.


I suspect there are few if any other hobbyist
programmers who would consider assembler.
I suspect I am a freak of nature in that sense.
Most would use VB as that is very easy to learn.
Without my past experience with assembler and
dos I don't think I would have considered it.


Ok thanks for the offer Matt. If I find myself
unable to program without it I might take up your
offer or perhaps get someone with a fast connection
to download it for me.

However my projects are simple. As you can see
in another thread I experimented a lot in dos with
image processing from the point of view of robotics.
Displaying the image in dos is a bit of a kludge
but robot vision isn't the same as image processing
for artwork or photography etc. It is for extraction
of visual data not the transformation of one image
into another.

The modern webcam can offer face tracking and
motion activated video recording for security.
These are easy types of things to program and
it would have been fun to do this and other
ideas I have but the hardware is off bounds
to a hobbyist programmer.

John

matt c

Sorry it took so long for a response.

You might want to pick just one assembler
to learn with. Masm has the most support,
and examples. But Fasm is the easiest to setup
and use (in my opinion).

Well, you download it and install it.
This contains all the do***entation\examples\tools
for the windows platform programming environment.
The total sdk size is about ~266mb, BUT, you can download
it in 25mb pieces. So it would help to have a fast internet
connection. the Link is: http://www.microsoft.com/msdownload/platformsdk/sdkupdate/XPSP2FULLInstall.htm


most of the assembly code, is poorly commented,
[my examples too =*). ]
I hate to say. The Iczelion's Tutorials are probably
the best place to start if your going to program for
windows. the code use's the masm compiler.
Here is the link: http://win32asm.cjb.net/

Not really, thanks to Fasm, and Masm, windows
assembly isn't that much harder at all. Once you learn
the basics, window creation and text output.
See the Iczelion's Tutorials link above.

I'll look and see if I can find you. Hang in there,
Windows programming will take a while to get the
hang of. Even with the knowledge I have I'm just
scratching the surface. Just go slow, take your time,
and enjoy the ride!!!

jgcasey

Well I cannot download all that, I have a limited
connection. Anyway I noticed the assembler Windows
examples seemed to compile with whatever include
files came with the tutorials?

Also the C tutorials, which I thought might be an easier
way to learn Windows programming, also compile without
anything being downloaded? [...]

Iczelion's Tutorials really assume a knowledge
of Windows programming ( presumably via C ) and
a knowledge of the high level directives used
by MASM which weren't in the MASM DOS code that
I learnt to program assembler DOS with. [...]


As there are no tutorials to teach assembler
Windows programming I will have to learn it
using C, after which will I have any incentive
to ever use assembler again?

I just started with Windows and C today and the
difference between that and trying to get started
with Windows and Assembler were like night and
day in terms of how easy it was. I didn't have
to worry about different assembler syntax, nor
the setting of pathways or finding any other
stuff to make it all work! Build All... Run!

Cheers,

John Casey

matt c

I was in the same boat you are now, I programmed in dos assembly
until the year 2001 or so. Once Windows XP and DirectX 9.0 Came
out it convinced me once and for all to abandon DOS permanently.
If you feel better programming in c/c++ then do it. I've had to learn
c/c++ too, just so I could translate the code and make myself some
examples other than the standard simple examples. I guess it's just a
case of how much extra homework your willing to do, and if you want
to make a job out of your hobby you will most likely HAVE to know
c/c++. But learning assembly language is a nice plus, even if your
only going to program in your Visual C/C++ environment. If you get
stuck setting up the assembler environment or c/c++ conversion Just
ask around on the forums (like this one) and the answer should pop up
eventually. About the SDK, even if your going to program in c/c++
you still should have this, This gives you all the information you
need for API calls to kernel, gdi, and all other windows API's.
I can send you a copy if you like, all I need is an address, and I'll
throw in the DirectX SDK as well.
I guess thats it. Matt

jgcasey

I was able to continue with dos thanks to WDosX that
gave me easy access to above 1Meg memory and thus
I could make full use of the 32bit instructions and
I didn't stop assembly until about six years ago.
Since than I have used dos C, dabbled without real
success with VC++ mfc and recently tried Java which
appears to have real promise for the hobbyist.


It will always only be a hobby. My time is limited
and that is the biggest obstacle. Learning dos
assembler was made simple by the fact dos was simple.
Windows is a different ball game and is not so much
about learning assembler, which essentially I know,
but rather learning how to work in a complex os.


I suspect there are few if any other hobbyist
programmers who would consider assembler.
I suspect I am a freak of nature in that sense.
Most would use VB as that is very easy to learn.
Without my past experience with assembler and
dos I don't think I would have considered it.


Ok thanks for the offer Matt. If I find myself
unable to program without it I might take up your
offer or perhaps get someone with a fast connection
to download it for me.

However my projects are simple. As you can see
in another thread I experimented a lot in dos with
image processing from the point of view of robotics.
Displaying the image in dos is a bit of a kludge
but robot vision isn't the same as image processing
for artwork or photography etc. It is for extraction
of visual data not the transformation of one image
into another.

The modern webcam can offer face tracking and
motion activated video recording for security.
These are easy types of things to program and
it would have been fun to do this and other
ideas I have but the hardware is off bounds
to a hobbyist programmer.

John