Have a doubt................

[shaikkareem]

lots of oops concepts are going in shell programming. implementing interfaces is the key concept in it and lots of more of oop......now the point is masm don't support those(oop) concepts. now to program in shell space what to do...........

[dedndave]

http://www.drdobbs.com/embedded-systems/object-oriented-programming-in-assembly/184408319

things can always be done in assembler
the question is - what's the advantage?
it may take some work to get started, but it's do-able   :P

[jj2007]

Wow: By Randall Hyde, March 01, 1990 ::)

Check also BiteRider's site

[MichaelW]

While there are certain types of programs whose object-oriented implementation is better, examples abound where object-oriented programming systems (OOPS) buy you nothing.

[jj2007]

Agreed, Michael. Often, an intelligent use of structures is a much simpler solution.

[shaikkareem]

i've done programs in c,c++ and java but i found real programming feeling in assembly language programming(masm) better,better......than in them.
but when programming in windows with masm32 they making us to do with their fashion. to do more effective programs i need to take advantages of their library provided by masm32 way. i used masm32 features with not must required  in windows programming style....but now the things are quite against of support of masm32. they mentioning implement interfaces to use their parts... now i wondering how to use masm32 to implement them....studying pages sent links to me above to better understand masm32(assembly language) gottta be full of interesting.........now

[Gunther]

Jochen,

Wow: By Randall Hyde, March 01, 1990 ::)

Check also BiteRider's site

the TASM 4 from 1988 had a lot of object oriented features. Tom Swans book did cover these topics.

Gunther

[dedndave]

many of the forum members have played with COM, to one degree or another
it's used for many things, including OLE, Direct-X, WMI, and so on
i like to use qWord's "METHOD" macro   :t
it's not that bad   :P