| ??? 02/18/08 21:24 Read: times |
#151064 - Difference is... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Jan Waclawek said:
OK, OK, this is the good old asm.vs.HLL flame, nothing less and nothing more. A file system is not better nor worse than any medium-sized project, both approaches are well suitable here. Except that a decent file system is a medium-sized project in and of itself that then has to be interfaced to the real encompassing project. So basically you're meshing a medium-sized project with what is probably another medium-sized project (the application that needs the file system). Just a historical example: how do you think THE FAT has been implemented in it's original incarnation, in DOS? I honestly have no idea. Probably assembly language. The other file system that I am intimately familiar with (or was familiar with) was the old disk structure for Atari 8-bit DOS. And it was written in assembly language (which was subsequently published in source code format, with comments and everything). Proving once again that it can be done. I've never said otherwise. Regards, Craig Steiner |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| File Handling using 8 bit Uc | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Of course it's possible ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes, of course - but in assembler? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Agreed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| why mess? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| FAT in assembly | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| How did FAT come up? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| FATs popularity is largely given by... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Craig cited it as an example | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I disagree | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Asm vs. C | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| registers??? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Difference is... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Actually, that was me | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Oops | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| If you're not determined to use FAT12 or 16 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Conclusion? | 01/01/70 00:00 |