Talk:Open Watcom Assembler

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 February 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Fake references for Open Watcom Assembler

I have removed these references which are not serious information about WASM:

Leiterman, James (2005). "MASM vs. NASM vs. TASM vs. WASM". 32/64-bit 80x86 assembly language architecture. Wordware Publishing, Inc. p. 481. ISBN 9781598220025.
Welschenbach, Michael (2005). Cryptography in C and C++. Apress. p. 418. ISBN 9781590595022.
Fog, Agner (2009), Optimizing subroutines in assembly language (PDF) (2009-09-26 ed.), p. 13

Welschenbach simply says: "They can be assembled using Microsoft MASM .. or Watcom WASM"

Leiterman says: "I do not use it these days, but there is also the Watcom C/C++ with their WASM Assembler."

Agner Fog also says nothing instructive about WASM.

-- spin^control 00:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the Leiterman reference, placing it inline to the statement it supports. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agner describes both WASM and JWASM in an encyclopedic manner. Exactly what we need here. Pcap ping 00:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fog doesn't supply any new information about WASM. It only seems to be retained here through perverseness. It is not a source for WASM, which is the only relevant point for citing it. -- spin^control 05:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He provides information about the JWASM fork; that's what the citation is for. Pcap ping 05:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the Open Watcom Assembler article is there to mention JWASM? Makes sense. -- spin^control 05:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference and citation errors

The insertion of the work by Agner Fog is inappropriate, it is titled "Optimizing subroutines in assembly language" and addresses exactly that topic, it is not written as a review of different assembler and it states no more than Agner Fogs preference in assembler and a casual listing of the onces he is familiar with. His optimisation manual is both famous and appropriate to an article on x86 assembler optimisation but has no place in propping up a dead assembler that is no longer in use. Mention != reference or citation.

The opening statement in the page has a discontinuity where there is no association between the old WASM and the later JWASM. The association needs to be cited otherwise the reference to JWASM has no context. Would the editors who have taken over the task of writing the WASM-JWASM page now supply the appropriate technical expertise to properly justify the notability of WASM along with independent 3rd party reference material that supports the claims of notability.

Hutch48 (talk) 07:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the developer of a competing assembler (package) you have an obvious WP:COI, so you shouldn't be trying to have this article changed. That WASM is "dead" (according to you) is irrelevant, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository of software in current use. See also the article on CenterICQ for instance, where the "dead" software is far more famous than the "live" fork, CenterIM. Back on topic, Fog's book, although WP:SPS, does have a significant number of citations in academia [1], making it a WP:RS. And it covers both WASM and JWASM, so a continuity does exist in a source, and his opinions are relevant (although not yet included in this article). When JWASM will be covered in more independent sources that Fog's book, it will be possible have an article about it (again). Since you are somewhat of an authority in this field, you could have an article published about JWASM in a WP:RS, and that would help far more than your passive aggressive stance on multiple Wikipedia pages. Thank you, Pcap ping 08:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pcap, you should forget trying to attack me personally and concentrate on the shortcoming of the reference material. The Leiterman reference is a single sentence "I do not use it these days, but there is also the Watcom C/C++ with their WASM Assembler." which is neither review not reference material. Now instead of clutching at straws you need to deliver what is required for the notability of WASM to be established. If it is as you say notable then you will supply the material that demonstrates that it is notable. WASM is not a competitor to anything these days and your attempts at analysis here are unsound. Now instead of clutching at straws posting junk like the stuff so far, please produce the appropriate technical reference and review to demonstrate that WASM is notable so this page can move on. Also you need to understand that predictions are best done with a crystal ball and not try and predict things that simply does not exist.

Regards. Hutch48 (talk) 08:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a different source that you would prefer to cite instead in order to substantiate our statement that WASM is "included as part of the Watcom C/C++ compiler"? —Korath (Talk) 08:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Korath, you would be more than welcome to add independent reference and review to the list I have posted in the deletion topic for this page instead of just your statement. Hutch48 (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to post here in defense of Hutch48. While it is completely reasonable to claim that he has a conflict of interest with this topic, per the guidelines for such matters he is being perfectly compliant. He has not edited the article space at all, and has only participated in the talk page for the article, which COI editors are actually encouraged to do. His participation at this talk page is certainly welcome. -- Atama頭 17:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I took the article to AfD. Pcap ping 22:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Why is WASM considered notable enough to have an article but JWASM is not ? While JWASM is a fork of WASM it is in active development and a much more mature program than WASM which no longer appears to be in development. Likewise several other obscure and minor assemblers have their own articles including HLA which isn't even a true assembler so how is notability determined ? Clearly MASM (Microsoft Macro Assembler) is notable as it is the standard x86 assembler and is still maintained. TASM (Borland Turbo Assembler) is notable as it was a commercial product. GAS (GNU Assembler) is notable for being a standard in the Linux/Unix world. An argument for the notability of JWASM is the fact that it is an open-source alternative to MASM with a very high compatibility to MASM syntax and can process almost all source files which MASM can which is something the other minor assemblers can't do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.51.132 (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG. Pcap ping 10:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our anonymous editor seems to have found this response unhelpful. Pcap's insistence on maintaining this unexplanatory comment is typical of the unexplained keeping of this article whose main reason for existence seems to be to supply a reference to JWASM that the people, who voted to keep this page, voted to remove.

Now that they have assured the survival of this vestigial article, those people who made sure it stayed will never be back to add anything to it to give it any real content or credibility.

While JWASM is alive and in use, Open Watcom Assembler is a fossil, but the Wiki politicians have assured that it's the fossil without user-base that is preferable to the living, and thus in the relevant circles notable, JWASM. -- spin^control 02:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you dispute the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Watcom Assembler or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM, take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When Wiki politicians join together to keep a fossil article they'll never improve, is there any point in disputing the decision? And the thing is, OrangeDog, you know that it will never be improved and that it will remain just a vestigial reference to JWASM. -- spin^control 23:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeDog and Pohta-whatever (both foolish names by the way) are typical WikiDrones™ who blindly regurgitate rules and likely have no real knowledge of the subject matter. WASM has not been updated in years and if you look the Current State section on Watcom's site (http://www.openwatcom.com/index.php/Wasm) you will see that while it is intended to be MASM compatible, it is lacking in a number of features. On the other hand JWasm is in active development (v2.02 was released Jan. 19, 2010), supports almost every feature of MASM, supports all x86 instructions (IA32 and Intel 64 and all SIMD instructions to date), it has builds for Win32, DOS and Linux, can generate OMF, COFF, and DOS binaries (COM and EXE) and it is open source. To someone who is actually an Intel x86 assembly language programmer, JWasm is quite notable indeed. Keep in mind that MASM is the de-facto standard for x86 assembly language so an open source assembler with a very high degree of MASM compatibility is definitely worthy of note. The same can not be said for several of the other obscure assemblers which have articles (e.g. FASM, YASM, HLA). Why does YASM which is a fork of NASM have its own article but not JWasm ? That seems quite arbitrary and frankly hypocritical. -- 99.186.40.14 06:56, 17 February 2010.

The people who killed JWASM have contented themselves to keep Open Watcom Assembler on a few paltry indications cribbed together from a text that barely mentions Open Watcom Assembler, a book that also mentions JWASM and an old unprovenanced internet blurb for the distribution of Open Watcom Assembler posted on a defunct teaching site. They have contented themselves that this crap justifies keeping Open Watcom Assembler as an article but not JWASM. They have no criterion to say what notability is in the specialist field of assembly programming. They applied the literal criteria supplied by the Wiki's guidelines for notability, rather than admitting that they didn't know what notability was in this case. However, once such a decision has been made, they are on to the next article to delete or keep and the results are set in stone. -- spin^control 07:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like our rules then go away. WP:Notability is all that decides whether an article exists, not your personal opinions. Specific issues were discussed in previous deletion discussion that I have already linked to. Nothing is set in stone and you can file a WP:Deletion review if you think the situation has changed. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument here. If you're that concerned about the article being maintained, then actually maintain it, rather than ranting disruptively. The only outcome of the latter will be your banning. (Also try not to make so many separate edits, it's very difficult to see what's going on. "Show preview" is there for a reason). OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier to read the final result in the discussion than wind through the problems of mild dyslexia manifested in editing errors.

You make a lovely content writing recruiter for Wikipedia: "If you don't like (my interpretation of) our rules then go away." (parenthesis added) You've helped drive off an expert in the field of assembly language programming. Now you are saying if someone doesn't like your interpretations of the rules, they can go away. Then you categorize people who disagree with you as "ranting disruptively". Finally, you threaten people with being banned. Who needs this? -- spin^control 22:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blah blah blah, can either of you two little WikiDrones™

1) make a real claim which refutes any of the reasons stated for the notability of JWasm that an Intel x86 assembly language programmer would agree with.

2) make a real claim stating why several other obscure assemblers are notable while JWasm is not.

3) do these in your own words without mindlessly quoting rules.

4) proof that you're actually versed in the subject matter and are actually qualified to make such a judgment call and if so show that you have no bias (i.e. don't want a JWasm article because it is highly MASM compatible and you don't like Microsoft)

The fact that the template for x86 assemblers has nine assemblers listed and four of those are obscure indicates that you either don't understand the subject or have a personal bias. 99.33.29.61 (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Because significant coverage of JWasm in reliable secondary sources could not be found.

2) Because significant coverage of them in reliable secondary sources could be found, or no-one disputed that they could.

3) Due to the fact that non-trivial third-party material could (not) be located that was published by people or organisations that are usually considered authoritative on those subjects and are independent of the subject.

4) I have a masters-level degree in the subject and have had peer-reviewed papers published on compiler optimisation.

5) The template for x86 assemblers was created and maintained by DocktorSpin, not me. Direct your accusations there.

Have you quite finished with your personal attacks, harassment and disruptive behaviour? If you actually want to change anything, you have to follow our processes. If either of you continue with this behaviour (I assume the changing IP user is the same person each time) then I will not grace you with further responses. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So your measure of notability is essentially a Google search ? FASM, HLA and YASM are obscure assemblers which aren't even MASM compatible and HLA isn't even a true assembler. If you are really versed in the subject as you claim you are then you know that MASM is the standard for x86 assemblers so from a purely technical perspective JWasm is superior to these other assemblers so if they have article then so should it.

Compiler optimization may require knowledge of assembly language but it isn't the same as being an assembly language developer. I've done quite a lot of actual x86 assembly language development including BIOS development.

Bottom line here is you and Pohta-whatever singled out one particular assembler to delete the article for while you left the others intact and this come across as a personal bias of some sort. Anyway why does it bother you so much if there is a JWasm article ? Obviously it shouldn't be a cut and paste of the MASM article but if it had information specifically describing it then what is the problem ?

The template for x86 assemblers was constructed from all the available topics in the field at the time. There was nothing deep about the choice of material; it was: use everything available on Wikipedia. That included JWASM and a number of other assemblers mentioned in the Comparison of assemblers article. When all the non-assembly language programmers decided to delete JWASM, I removed it from the template. -- spin^control 22:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference ascribed to Randall Hyde

Although there is a reference in the article attributed to Randall Hyde, the text itself when viewed from the link is unattributed, though the site does feature Randall Hyde's book on assembly language. There is no way of knowing who actually wrote the distribution blurb for WASM and it cannot be seen as a reliable 3rd party source, so it should be removed as it doesn't adhere to WP:GNG. It's just some unsourced stuff taken off internet by someone who wanted justify keeping this fossil article. -- spin^control 01:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entire website is owned by Mr Hyde, as can be seen by the fact that http://webster.cs.ucr.edu redirects to http://homepage.mac.com/randyhyde. Unless otherwise stated there, all content should be assumed to be written by him. You're free to sue him for copyright infringement if you believe otherwise. Until then, we will assume the citation is correctly attributed.

Sources are not supposed to adhere to WP:GNG, the relevant guideline is WP:RS. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can assume whatever you like, but it certainly won't be reliable. I can't find the WASM blurb at http://homepage.mac.com/randyhyde. Can you?? You can concoct any justification you like to support this clunker of an article. And why would you think of sueing someone for an unattributed blurb?? That's about as sensible as keeping this fossil article. -- spin^control 23:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you click "Comments, Suggestions, and Contact Info" you are taken to Mr Hyde's contact details. There is nothing to suggest that he did not write that blurb. You are the one scrabbling around desperately trying to find a reason to delete the page. The irony is that it only exists because of the fuss you kicked up during JWASM's deletion. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 14:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you so totally incapable of showing who actually wrote the material you are citing as a reliable third party source that you have to play such games? You don't mind citing an unattributed blurb on an unmaintained site whose contact information comes back to Randall Hyde. Did he write it? You don't know. Is it reliable? Obviously not. This is the emperor's new clothes syndrome, as the emperor realizes that he's not covered, so he grasps at anything that will cover his deficiencies. You helped ditch JWASM and don't have the fibre to be consistent. -- spin^control 21:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pot? Have you met kettle? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No response would have been more meaningful. -- spin^control 22:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WASM does not support RECORD keyword

This really raises portability issues when compiling code that is perfectly legal under MASM or TASM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.6.61.24 (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]