help?
#1
Posted 18 November 2002 - 04:31 AM
#2
Posted 18 November 2002 - 06:50 AM
Best of luck!
#3
Posted 18 November 2002 - 07:24 AM
#4 Guest_Bytefish Productions_*
Posted 18 November 2002 - 10:10 AM
Basic on casio is much easier than java.
I wish i could program java on it too, but there is no way to do it, at least on a 9850...
k have a nice day, have to go to school again. <_<
#5
Posted 19 November 2002 - 06:26 PM
#6
Posted 19 November 2002 - 06:54 PM
Do you mean javascript? As java is way much more than javascriptJava is quite though ! I prefer HTML as if it's not a real language !
Java has nothing to do with html
#7
Posted 19 November 2002 - 11:53 PM
it makes your mind..
mov cx, 1
rep inc cx
I dunno... maybe it's not healty for ya
Anyway, with modern computers, most people are better off using high level languages... ooh.. I was borne a (or two) decade too late
#8
Posted 20 November 2002 - 04:26 AM
#9
Posted 20 November 2002 - 11:25 AM
#10
Posted 20 November 2002 - 03:03 PM
#11
Posted 20 November 2002 - 03:57 PM
I preffer tutorials over books... for starting at least. books for beginners are too long and tedious, whereas tutorials are generally more straight forward, and not so boring (depends on the author ofcourse). After learning the basics of the language you can by more advanced books (or get resources on the net)speaking of assembler, anyone know a good way to get started in programing in assembler? I've tried looking at source code when I get it for games, but that source is much to complex for me to just start dissecting it. I would need a rather simple program (like all text or something) with source in order to really start to understand, but not sure where I could find "simple" programs written in ASM. Any clues?
I can send you some of the tutorials I used to learn asm. They mainly use TASM / MASM syntax, and are quite good and understandable.
Or, you could try programmersheaven, you'll find lots of tutorials, source codes, links, and tools there
Apart from that you abviously need to try and fail... and fail and fail and fail.. and then.. sit back and enjoy your superadvanced "hello world" poping up on the screen (maybe exagerating a bit... )
For me, I've only really done 286 asm, and a bit of 386+ asm, but nothing advanced, like using SIMD instructions or MULTITHREADING or anything thinking of starting that soon
Anyway, good to hear that someone is interested in learning asm. To my opinion, you need to know asm to be able to squeze any decent computing power out of this little calc
#12
Posted 20 November 2002 - 04:15 PM
Yeah, I wanted to say javascript ! I don't know what does java look like ...Do you mean javascript? As java is way much more than javascriptJava is quite though ! I prefer HTML as if it's not a real language !
Java has nothing to do with html
#13
Posted 21 November 2002 - 05:56 AM
#14
Posted 27 November 2002 - 07:26 PM
a friend of me programs in asm.
sometimes it is better to read a course (i.e. of an university and so on)
bye
rstweb
#15
Posted 27 November 2002 - 07:34 PM
the problem with c compared with asm (on the calc) is not just the speed difference, but all those libraries that you include... takes too much space...
anyway, for developing anything really big on a real computer, asm takes too long, allthough you might find that using som hand written asm routines for inner loops and cpu intensive tasks will speed the program up quite a bit
#16
Posted 27 November 2002 - 07:52 PM
bye
rstweb
#17
Posted 08 December 2002 - 10:33 AM
#18
Posted 08 December 2002 - 11:48 AM
not for small 286 programs
what do you mean by "cluster"? working on a team?...but if you want to work with a cluster you need c/c++. there's no MPI for asm...
and what doas MPI stand for?
btw, you never "need" c/c++..
#19
Posted 09 December 2002 - 03:16 PM
as far as I'm concerned, I'd say that it's a bit more hard than C...
#20
Posted 09 December 2002 - 03:31 PM
Yes, I doyou program in ams ?
It might have a steeper learning curve, but once you are used to it, it's not too difficult.you really think that it's not as tough as we believe ?
Well, C is a high level language, and therefor much closer to your general process of thinking. But the beauty with asm though, is that you learn to think differently. You think more on what the computer actually does to perform certain tasks. This is also helpful for you C programming, as it can improve your algorithms.as far as I'm concerned, I'd say that it's a bit more hard than C...
If you ignore the structural benifits of C, and break the languages down to what syntax you are actually writing, I find that asm is more straight and not more difficult to learn or understand. The hard part is using this very basic level of coding to create more complex routines. Then again, that's all a question of structere and abillity to write good algorithms.
hope I haven't offended anyone here, and I don't wish to a start a ASM vs C debate
#21
Posted 09 December 2002 - 04:14 PM
of course I understand. But I'd learn asm with pleasure but it'd be a bit useless for me so, I prefer keeping on with C !Yes, I doyou program in ams ?
It might have a steeper learning curve, but once you are used to it, it's not too difficult.you really think that it's not as tough as we believe ?
Well, C is a high level language, and therefor much closer to your general process of thinking. But the beauty with asm though, is that you learn to think differently. You think more on what the computer actually does to perform certain tasks. This is also helpful for you C programming, as it can improve your algorithms.as far as I'm concerned, I'd say that it's a bit more hard than C...
If you ignore the structural benifits of C, and break the languages down to what syntax you are actually writing, I find that asm is more straight and not more difficult to learn or understand. The hard part is using this very basic level of coding to create more complex routines. Then again, that's all a question of structere and abillity to write good algorithms.
hope I haven't offended anyone here, and I don't wish to a start a ASM vs C debate
#22
Posted 09 December 2002 - 04:29 PM
a cluster is a connection of many computers via networking. these computers do ressource division (i hope o translated it well). it means instead have only the power of a single computer you have the power of all computers of cluster.asm isn't really all that hard you know...
not for small 286 programswhat do you mean by "cluster"? working on a team?...but if you want to work with a cluster you need c/c++. there's no MPI for asm...
and what doas MPI stand for?
btw, you never "need" c/c++..
MPI is the shortform for Message passing interface. with a derivate of of MPI (for example MPICH) you can use the whole power of a cluster.
you need c/c++, because for MPi you need a special compiler. these compiler are only for C/c++.
bye
rstweb
#23
Posted 09 December 2002 - 04:34 PM
just didn't see what should keep you from doing that in asm...
#24
Posted 15 December 2002 - 12:02 PM
I think it looks easier but I just can't stand having to go through Menus and Menus to get to one basic command.hey i am a java programmer too.
Basic on casio is much easier than java.
I wish i could program java on it too, but there is no way to do it, at least on a 9850...
Rufus
#25
Posted 15 December 2002 - 12:10 PM
Well it looks like this:Yeah, I wanted to say javascript ! I don't know what does java look like ...Do you mean javascript? As java is way much more than javascriptJava is quite though ! I prefer HTML as if it's not a real language !
Java has nothing to do with html
public class CLSFractal
extends java.applet.Applet
implements Runnable, MouseListener {
Thread kicker;
ContextLSystem cls;
int fractLevel = 1;
int repaintDelay = 50;
boolean incrementalUpdates;
float startAngle = 0;
float rotAngle = 45;
float Xmin;
float Xmax;
float Ymin;
float Ymax;
int border;
boolean normalizescaling;
public void init() {
String s;
cls = new ContextLSystem(this);
s = getParameter("level");
if (s != null) fractLevel = Integer.parseInt(s);
s = getParameter("incremental");
if (s != null) incrementalUpdates = s.equalsIgnoreCase("true");
s = getParameter("delay");
if (s != null) repaintDelay = Integer.parseInt(s);
s = getParameter("startAngle");
if (s != null) startAngle = Float.valueOf(s).floatValue();
s = getParameter("rotAngle");
if (s != null) rotAngle = Float.valueOf(s).floatValue();
rotAngle = rotAngle / 360 * 2 * 3.14159265358f;
s = getParameter("border");
if (s != null) border = Integer.parseInt(s);
s = getParameter("normalizescale");
if (s != null) normalizescaling = s.equalsIgnoreCase("true");
addMouseListener(this);
}
public void destroy() {
removeMouseListener(this);
}
public void run() {
Thread me = Thread.currentThread();
boolean needsRepaint = false;
while (kicker == me && cls.getLevel()
#26 Guest_Bytefish Productions_*
Posted 15 December 2002 - 12:22 PM
#27
Posted 15 December 2002 - 02:40 PM
But if you were not able to find the commands in menus programsI think it looks easier but I just can't stand having to go through Menus and Menus to get to one basic command.hey i am a java programmer too.
Basic on casio is much easier than java.
I wish i could program java on it too, but there is no way to do it, at least on a 9850...
Rufus
would become pretty large! Locate would take 6 Bytes instead of
1 (or 2 can't remember)!
So most programs would get 10x as large as they are! You wouldn't really
want that on a 32 KB Memory
#28
Posted 16 December 2002 - 06:52 AM
But for people like me who just got their calculator yesterday, they don't need so much space.But if you were not able to find the commands in menus programsI think it looks easier but I just can't stand having to go through Menus and Menus to get to one basic command.hey i am a java programmer too.
Basic on casio is much easier than java.
I wish i could program java on it too, but there is no way to do it, at least on a 9850...
Rufus
would become pretty large! Locate would take 6 Bytes instead of
1 (or 2 can't remember)!
So most programs would get 10x as large as they are! You wouldn't really
want that on a 32 KB Memory
Anyway it is easier with java even though it takes up more space because you can customize commands. There are no set functions. You can be the architect.
Also Java isn't designed for calculators, it's designed for pc's, laptops and handheld computers.
Rufus
#29
Posted 18 December 2002 - 05:03 AM
#30
Posted 18 December 2002 - 07:15 AM
It'll be nice to have java in the calto, no ? because there aren't too many different languages in which we can program (I don't know if my sentence is right but you should get it!)But for people like me who just got their calculator yesterday, they don't need so much space.But if you were not able to find the commands in menus programsI think it looks easier but I just can't stand having to go through Menus and Menus to get to one basic command.hey i am a java programmer too.
Basic on casio is much easier than java.
I wish i could program java on it too, but there is no way to do it, at least on a 9850...
Rufus
would become pretty large! Locate would take 6 Bytes instead of
1 (or 2 can't remember)!
So most programs would get 10x as large as they are! You wouldn't really
want that on a 32 KB Memory
Anyway it is easier with java even though it takes up more space because you can customize commands. There are no set functions. You can be the architect.
Also Java isn't designed for calculators, it's designed for pc's, laptops and handheld computers.
Rufus
#31
Posted 18 December 2002 - 01:56 PM
#32
Posted 18 December 2002 - 03:29 PM
As for the other languages like VB and just normal basic, I've never heard of anyone getting those to work on the casio's, but I would imagine that even if you did it would still be the slow speeds casio's exhibit because it's the translation of the basic that makes those games and such run slow.
#33
Posted 20 December 2002 - 07:58 AM
#34
Posted 20 December 2002 - 01:48 PM
4 (!!!) quotes in one post. i think it is a little bit too much. the 3 oldest quotes could be deleted. one qoute could help reading but 4 quotings makes reading difficult.
bye
rstweb
#35
Posted 21 December 2002 - 07:59 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users