masm64v01.zip

[avcaballero]

There will be at some point a downloadable version?

Thank you

[hutch--]

Yes but it will be an add on to MASM32 as it has the editor and tools. What I cannot do is distribute the Microsoft binaries so the user will have to supply those themselves. The code looks similar to the 32 bit style but there are differences and ML64 does no size or argument count checking so it is very intolerant to even slight mistakes. I do have permission to distribute Pelle's tools and his linker and resource compiler are both very good, up to date and reliable.

[Mikl__]

Hi, hutch--!
and it is very difficult to get permission from Microsoft to distribute in your masm64v01.zip ml64.exe and link.exe? After all, this is an additional  advertising for firm Microsoft that Microsoft don't pay. IMHO, this will require only the addition of the license agreement in the BIN64 folder. Is not it?

[hutch--]

Hi Mikl__,

Long ago it was easy, I could just ring up one of the folks at Microsoft and they would help you out but years later I tried for a later version and for a lot of messing around, it was just a waste of time as they were fighting off the GPL invasion. I don't think I could be bothered again as it was a lot of hassle for nothing. Folks who want to write 64 bit MASM will know how to get it even though it involves some rediculous sized download from Microsoft.

[Mikl__]

Long ago it was easy

probably it is worthwhile to try again... Is there anyone on the forum, who is working at Microsoft and will can help in this regard?

[jj2007]

Long ago it was easy

probably it is worthwhile to try again...

Very difficult. It's Microsoft, and they have very good lawyers. Even if they were willing to do it, you would spend weeks and months writing a EULA that satisfies their sick idea of English... ::)

Probably, it's much, much easier to just rewrite the whole thing. Write a perfect clone of ML64! On that occasion, you could even eliminate some annoying bugs, and, hey, why not add the missing functionality, i.e. invoke, .if ... .endif, .Repeat ... .Until etc?  :P

[hutch--]

I am sure you speak from years of experience dealing with Microsoft. I wonder if there is any end to trolling for "Open Sauce", leave the lid off "Open Sauce" and it goes stale, like most "Open Sauce" projects.

[Mikl__]

hutch--, jj2007,
I'm sorry, but it seems that I have raised the issue of an ancient dispute. Believe me, I did it by accident

[jj2007]

trolling for "Open Sauce"

Not my intention (your aversion is well understood); I just wanted to point to the valuable work of three members of this forum ;)

[hutch--]

I wonder why you stop there, FASM, Bogdan's assembler, GNU "AS" (GAS) and whatever else. I have already seen Japheth's piece of crippleware that you seem to have abandoned, complete with its crappy c header conversion tool. You forget, I spent years being attacked by "Open Sauce" bludgers because I would not write software for their shitty licence.

While the Watcom forks will probably have support in terms of include files and libraries by the year 3000, ML64 already has a comprehensive set of both and is production capable already. I have waited for years to see if any of the bludgers would produce the support to make the Watcom forks viable but it never happened, I want a tool that is finished in my lifetime and ML64 is already finished, that's the difference and its backed up by Microsoft who use it themselves.

I only support freeware, the rest can write their own.

[avcaballero]

Probably, it's much, much easier to just rewrite the whole thing. Write a perfect clone of ML64! On that occasion, you could even eliminate some annoying bugs, and, hey, why not add the missing functionality, i.e. invoke, .if ... .endif, .Repeat ... .Until etc?  :P

I'm more on this option. Surely most people just want to download a zip and install it. Hence I wonder if jwasm has everyting packed: libs, incs, bins. Though maybe masm is better known value. What doesn't mean that I don't like that there're alternatives.

[hutch--]

caballero,

There is a solution, write the support for JWASM yourself. Whatever you do don't hold your breath waiting for someone else to do it, it won't be finished until the year 3000.

[TWell]

There is a solution, write the support for JWASM yourself. Whatever you do don't hold your breath waiting for someone else to do it, it won't be finished until the year 3000.

I don't understand this programming rasistic comment. as jwasm have WinInc package too.
And with polib it is easy to create x64 libs.

The last Vortex x64 example show us that we can make program without MACROs .

I am not a asm programmer, but i do some code analysis sometimes.

[hutch--]

Simple Tim, its my choice to write in Microsoft assembler and I don't see its anyone's place to attack me over it. I have put up with this crap for years from the "Open Sauce" brigade because I will not support their licence or binaries and will continue to suggest that they get off their arse and write their own. JJ's repeated trolling is not a winner here, I don't care what he chooses to write code with as long as he does not expect me to write its support for him.

I have already posted the technique to make a full set of libraries using Pelle's library manager but as usual all I get back is trolling for open sauce assemblers. Too many years of too many trolls has left its mark, I used to give away code to the open sauce brigade but all I ever got back was their PHUKING licence.

[avcaballero]

> I don't see its anyone's place to attack me over it
ahem, I'm not sure if I enter on that phrase. Nothing is further from my intention to attack anyone. In fact I respect the selfless work that cares about doing something that can create a program. In fact I usually write code for several different compilers and could not say which one I like more. Anything that someone is willing to do, will be well received by me.

I know almost nothing about jwasm, but I think it has no own libraries. In my humble opinion I think it should has them to unseat MASM simply because of the fact that many people prefer the convenience of having everything ready to use. I don't use Jwasm not because I think is bad, but because I use regularly fasm, MASM, NASM, tinyc and PellesC. Probably if it were a package ready to use, I would use it too.

I'm lazy, so I tend to simplicity :lol: