Omnimaga > Hot Dog's TI-83+ Z80 ASM for the Absolute Beginner
For the last time, I am NOT going to use $9D95 in my early ASM lessons
Hot_Dog:
There have been a lot of people that have asked me why I choose to use .org 40339 to start ASM programs in my lessons. I wrote this up because I hope that people who read it will understand why, even if they themselves don't like it.
I know that most of the time, RAM addresses are stated as hexadecimal, and indeed, when hexadecimal is introduced in my ASM lessons, I switch to .org $9D93.
But is it absolutely necessary? Will the universe or the person's calculator explode if I use 40339? These lessons are for the absolute beginner! BEGINNER! Why on earth does it matter whether I use hexadecimal or decimal at the beginning? Let me repharse: why am I making a big deal out of this?
Well, do you know why my lessons are successful? Because I expalin to people exactly how everything works and I make it easy for them. Read my third lesson on RAM addresses, where I explain and help people understand what ram addresses are. Then ask yourself: Which is easier to understand, that the ASM program starts at the 40339th byte of the calculator? Or that the ASM program starts at the 9D93th byte? When I show what compiled ASM programs look like, is it easier for a beginner to count in decimal, or in hexadecimal?
You can disagree with me as much as you want, but if you read this, please don't bug me on the "method to my madness." No hard feelings, but I just hear it so many times that I start to feel like I'm an idiot for not "following the rules." Whatever the case, my lessons have not lost popularity from choosing to use decimal numbers.
jnesselr:
I actually like that style. I up-rated your post, but I think it could have been done slightly nicer. When you say this, it makes you seem like an expert on everything. (Granted, you might just be.) Anyway, I would just say something along the lines of $9D95 would work too, but we'll get to that later. I love concepts that build up, because it reinforces and gives use to the knowledge you have.
Hot_Dog:
--- Quote from: graphmastur on March 06, 2011, 04:48:15 pm --- I up-rated your post, but I think it could have been done slightly nicer. When you say this, it makes you seem like an expert on everything.
--- End quote ---
Interesting. Yeah, it could be nicer, and I knew it even while I was typing it up. But it's not me seeming liking an expert. It's frustration because everyone's telling me "No, you need to do it this way!" as if THEY are experts on everything.
EDIT: Thanks for pointing this out, though, because I tried to be a good sport, and I know now that I wasn't
jnesselr:
--- Quote from: Hot_Dog on March 06, 2011, 04:52:24 pm ---
--- Quote from: graphmastur on March 06, 2011, 04:48:15 pm --- I up-rated your post, but I think it could have been done slightly nicer. When you say this, it makes you seem like an expert on everything.
--- End quote ---
Interesting. Yeah, it could be nicer, and I knew it even while I was typing it up. But it's not me seeming liking an expert. It's frustration because everyone's telling me "No, you need to do it this way!" as if THEY are experts on everything.
--- End quote ---
oh, I totally understand. 9D95 is just easy to learn methinks. Instead of 40339. (Wait, I just memorized it in like 2 seconds, hey, look at that). I think a lot of ASM programmers mentalities are "we'll tell you this, and you'll just go with it, but we'll explain it later".
<off-topic>
Anyway, yeah. I think I'm gonna change my avatar, the thing is starting to freak me out. ;-)
</off-topic>
KermMartian:
I'm in the $9D95 camp. I just feel everything works out better for everyone if we use the accepted and widely-held convention of hex for addresses. :) No hard feelings that you disagree.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version