Talk:High Level Assembly
An Argument Against Deletion
I found this article useful, if for no other reason than it helped me understand what HLA is. If there's an argument against the use or validity of the language, it should be cogently written into the article. I'm a beginner programmer, trying to learn the basics from the bottom up -- I'm looking into buying some Randall Hyde books on programming in Assembly, so an article like this kinda helps me understand what I'm getting into with that author. It was DEFINITELY useful to learn that HLA is considered an "academic" and "offshoot" language. So, if that's the truth of it, someone who really is an expert ought to write that in. -- Oct. 25 2012, email@example.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
2004 POV issue
Maybe this article is better off deleted. After the first two sentences, it is POV hell...--Fangz 23:34, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- YES Belgian man 19:45, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
is it a language or an assembler?
The Assembler article says HLA is an assembler, and that it's in the public domain. Can anyone comment on either of these statement? If it's in the public domain, can someone provide a link to it? Can anyone provide a link to any webpage which proves the existence of HLA? Is the program binary in the public domain (making it freeware) or is the program's source code in the public domain (making it free software)?? Thanks for any help. Gronky 19:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- It is one varient of Intel sytnax 80x86 assembly language which has at least one implementation (assembler) supporting it. You already posted a link since you posted the above the comment, so no need for response there. Both the implementation binary and its source, along with the source of the library are all in public domain. -- KTC 21:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
HLA stand for High Language Assembly
- The homepage listed in the article says "High Level Assembler", not high language. RJFJR (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
It's High Level Assembly. I edited some of the text to be more readable, but the article definitely needs more work. It is both an implementation of an assembler and an offshoot, if you will, of x86 assembly language. The assembly language macros comprise the language aspect... reserved words that stand for other discrete chunks of code, combinations of which provide a useful manner in which to write asm code, much more expressively and intuitively than otherwise possible. Also, it should definitely not be deleted. There is enormous value in understanding and documenting this subject. (JRowe)
- There is absolutely nothing 'new' about an assembler macro language being able to construct object-oriented programs (or ay other trendy paradigm for that matter). Assembler macros that existed in the early 1960's were exceedingly powerful and have increased in power ever since. The 'shock and awe' felt by the above writers concerning the possibility of the existence of an assembler generating OOP programs is simply that they are apparently unaware that computing did not start with PC's in the 80's. The article should definitely stay as it confirms my beleif that current programmers need to realize that current dogma concerning the superiority of this or that language or paradigm is simply that - there are, and will always be, alternatives that are still validken (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC).
- Having grown up with the mainframe assemblers of the 60's and 70's, I can assure you that HLA's macro capabilities are a bit more powerful than the macro capabilities that existed back then. As for *generating* OOP programs, that's never been a big deal in assembly language, but having classes and direct support built into the assembly language is fairly rare. I don't remember anything like this in System 360/370 macro (or even IBM's HLASM). TASM had this in the 1990s. I'd be interested in a reference for an assembler that had classes and support for object-oriented programming *built into the language* prior to this. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)rhyde
Personally I do not see a problem with the article. HLA has been around for a long time. It provides a nice framework for assembly language programming and is freely available on the web. Google knows where it is as usual (try http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/AsmTools/HLA/index.html for starters). It seems to be available for Win, OS X, and Linux. I agree with the comment below that macro assemblers have been in use for decades, and that is what this really is. Certain file access, looping, and conditional primitives are invoked as macros and the core computations are done in explicit assembly codes allowing detailed management of the registers, ports, and low level processor features. IBM High Level Assembler, and Microsoft Macro Assembler have long had various constructs resembling those in HLA described here. Could be that it needs a little beefing up in the macro descriptions. Pseudopigraphia (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
This article seems to push for inclusion of HLA in college or university courses, rather than being a neutral article on the language. It talks extensively about the advantages of a student learning curve, while neglecting to talk specifics about the language itself -- for example, what's the support for OO programming like, or how the sophisticated macro stdout.put operates. From reading the article, I don't get much feel for the language at all, rather a feeling that I've just been told why I should visit the webpage of the assembler. I do believe it sounds like an advertisement at this time. (sorry if these aren't more specific, but I'm very busy these days and unable to write a more detailed summary of problems). nneonneo talk 19:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hm... I'm not taking one side or another, but I think that while discussing this, it's important to keep in mind that the language was designed specifically for pedagogic purposes. --Storkk (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Why is a recompile needed to port a program between Windows and Linux? It's all x86. Doesn't the toolchain form this language support the same object file format on Windows and Linux? If the code is just calling the HLA standard library, shouldn't just the same compiled object files need to be relinked against the different implementation of the standard library? -- 01:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk)
- Well Linux uses ELF most commonly whereas Windows uses the PE format. So they are not binary equivalent, that's one of the issues of porting between OS's and has nothing to do with the HLA language 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- There are a couple of issues wrt to "recompilation" comment. First of all, as already noted, PE/COFF, ELF and Mach-O object file formats are completely different. You cannot link a COFF file produced under Windows against an ELF or Mach-O file produced on Linux, FreeBSD, or Mac OS X. Second, the comment is describing complete *applications*, not small library functions that you link with C/C++ or other HLL programs. Between the HLA Standard Library and the HLA language itself, there are many OS-dependent issues abstracted away. You need to recompile the program to take advantage of these abstractions on different platforms. Given that no other multi-platform assembler (e.g., NASM or Gas) can achieve this without a large amount of conditional assembly, this is actually an impressive feature for an assembly language. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)rhyde.
HLA Adventure (non-education example)
A game using HLA has gotten some coverage. This would be an example to pull in outside the education domain if someone wants to add it: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8396#mpart3 Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
High Level Assembly language vs. High Level Assembler
This article is too confusing as to whether it is about a particular assembly language (High Level Assembly language) or the tool that translates this particular assembly language into machine code (High Level Assember). The title is "High Level Assembly" (the language), but the first sentence that should define what it is starts out as "High Level Assembler (HLA) is an front-end for several x86 assemblers ..." (the tool).
I think it should be much more clear whether this article is about one or the other. There is, after all, only one title. E.g. "High Level Assembly (programming language)" or "High Level Assember".
If it is about the tool then there could be a section about the language and vice versa. There could also be two separate articles, one for the tool and one for the language.
What do you think?
- I didn't write the article (though I have corrected several misconceptions and things that have changed over the past decade). However, I do have a couple of comments:
- HLA is both a language and an implementation of a language. It will remain that way until another version of the HLA compiler is written, so choosing one (tool vs language) over the other is premature at this point. OTOH, if anyone *really* cares about the distinction, the article should cover the language (as it mainly does) rather than the tool.
- "front-end" is gone. HLA is a stand-alone assembler (since v2.0). It still has the ability to translate HLA source code amongst assemblers and this should be mentioned in the article. Maybe if I have some more time someday...
- HLA actually stands for "High Level Assembler", not "High Level Assembly". Given the fact, however, that "High Level Assembly" is a very generic term that applies to many other products, I am satisfied with the title "High Level Assembly" and the cross links between this topic and the "High Level Assembler" topic.
- The site and the book(s) refer to it in different places as both "HLA (High-Level Assembly)" and "HLA (High-Level Assembler)." The reference manual overview starts out with "HLA, the High Level Assembler, is a vast improvement over traditional assembly languages." Not very helpful. MFNickster (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
- This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
- There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
- It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
- In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
- This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)