What's the point of remarks?

ASM is source code, machine code very very complex yet very very powerful its not an exeacuteable like EXE.

I need a batch to asm converter. (make it free if possible). I want to be able to send it to my friends so they can edit some of the code too ( yeah I use remarks  ).

BFC,

Batch and ASM are completely different and there isnt any converter for this kinda stuff. read about ASM here

That would be cool if there was one. But yeah, it's complicated. But there are even more complicated.

Code: [Select]

The REALLY good ones turn it into asm

Is that even more complicated then EXE  ?!?

To you it would be, yes.

Actually, I looked it up more. Pretty comparable  . Dias, you won't be able to go everywhere being the
"wise guy" you claim everybody else to be.

When there is a great need, somebody will do it. If a compile of a batch file is really needed, it will be done. Somehow. But it is seldom done. Here is why.

In very complex operations the higher level of code is in a form the people can modify and use right away. The Edit, Compile, Link, Debug, Verify, Deploy and Revise business can take too long in a real-time process where a revision in the logic, settings or performance  has to bee done quickly.

IT administrators often use batch files, because batch files are quicker in the over-all process. It is not so much have many milliseconds it takes the batch to run. It is the time it takes to get it up and running from the point where a new task is needed until the user has in on her computer.

Actually, I looked it up more. Pretty comparable  . Dias, you won't be able to go everywhere being the
"wise guy" you claim everybody else to be.

BFC,

your getting a bit to big for your britches; he's been here longer so he's more experienced than you.

Everybody has a "batch to ASM converter". Here's a picture of one

I believe there was a Batch to ASM conversion program at some point- but it only worked with Pure DOS (no NT commands).

Actually, I looked it up more. Pretty comparable  .

what? an straight machine code executable comparable to Assembly? I suppose somebody could say that... until they realize that it's a bit more difficult to memorize and interpret the meaning of a set of hexadecimal bytes then it is to read a assembly display of those same set of bytes.

Everybody has a "batch to ASM converter". Here's a picture of one

<image>

Except some people are missing the ASM module completely.

Wait a minute, you people are doing all the work for me. You say that it's harder to convert batch to asm ( a much easier language then exe) But then you say that it's easier to convert batch to exe. There's no logic in that. When you say "experience", there are two and more meanings.
1. you're a smart-*censored* who knows everything
2. you're a real helpful person who knows everybody.
3. you're a lazy "thing" that has been in the forum for years and posts stuff like, cool, and i like that.

Wait a minute, you people are doing all the work for me. You say that it's harder to convert batch to asm ( a much easier language then exe) But then you say that it's easier to convert batch to exe. There's no logic in that. When you say "experience", there are two and more meanings.
1. you're a smart-*censored* who knows everything
2. you're a real helpful person who knows everybody.
3. you're a lazy "thing" that has been in the forum for years and posts stuff like, cool, and i like that.

you obviously don't understand jack-*censored* about what we're saying.

It's easier to convert to EXE because one could create a Stub executable in C or C++ for example that loads batch code that is appended to the executable. the C program, upon being run, loads the batch code from the end of itself (argv[0], of course), saves it in a temporary file, shells the batch file, deletes the temporary file, and closes.

EXE is machine code. it translates DIRECTLY into assembly. That's why it's called "dissasembly" not "decompiling" to ASM source. The comments are gone, which are kind of important to understanding anything that is happening in a ASM program. Which ironically answers your topics question.

conversely- you don't "Compile" an ASM program but rather "assemble" it, which is a fairly simple task at a basic level- strip out comments and right out each ASM instruction as the directly corresponding piece of machine code. ASM is just a symbolic way of looking at the machine code.

This is why, with most "batch compiling" systems (which, as stated before simply prepend some cheap C program to the front of the batch code and call it a day) you can simply open the executable and copy the code- comments and all. More "sophisiticated" batch compiling programs try to further obfuscate the code by performing EXE compression on the resulting executable, appended batch code and all. Of course, this prepends ANOTHER executable to the front of the current one, meaning that the decompression routine needs to save a temporary file containing the original executable, which can be opened and the batch code once again copied out as if the compression algorithm wasn't there (and in fact it's quite transparent)

you obviously don't understand
jack- about what we're saying.

It would be easier if you could make it clear what you are saying.

Source code translators are available. But they are not used by the average person because they represent a huge amount of research for a taks that a small number of system designers need. Like mega bucks of code that has to be ported onto another system. Some of the major programs we have today stated out as translations of programs written for other CPUs and systems. Then there were later re written in better quality code. If the original code was in C, the process did not need much in the way of an automatic translation. Bur if the program was written in PL/1 or FORTRAN or COBOL, it could be a major job porting it to another platform.
Munch of the early work on small personal computers had to be done in Assembler because good C compiles were no available at first. In fact, they were very bad. A early language from Intel was called PL/M and was used to speed up the process and put some structure into our code. And you have to pay big bucks to get a copy.
Noways you can get free development tools from Microsoft for your favorite language. (Sorry, no Pascal.) Visual stdio versions of BASIC, C, C++ and J++ plus a Web Builder.

But a visual ASM? Foo! That is hard to do. You hive to use MASM32, which is a real pain. look here:
http://www.masm32.com/

porting from one architecture to another is only vaguely related to the idea of converting from one language to another,but they definitely fall into the same domain.

batch, obviously presents a trouble spot since all the various constructs and possible switches and so forth will need to be handled properly; and even so you gain nothing but code obfuscation anyway, since any language it translates too will need to shell to dos to perform the commands such as FIND and MORE and so forth.

ASM is source code, machine code very very complex yet very very powerful its not an exeacuteable like EXE.

close !

ASM is simply a symbolic form of machine code, and as such it would be foolish to voluntarily select machine code over ASM for programming- as it isn't any more powerful, and much harder to read or interpret; besides- in order to do anything with machine code, one must know (in a way) ASM.

As for the second part- not all Executables are machine code, but they almost always have some machine code to get started- for example, some Microsoft C compilers allow the source to be compiled to P-code. the program itself starts with machine code- and the only machine code present is the P-code interpreter. It was similar to the way Java does it, except the program contained the entire JVM for the platform.

thats true...
ASM would be the more "brushed up" version of Machine code yet ASM is not interchangable with all computers since all computers dont have the same proccessor. which makes it easier to program in higher lvl languages, such as VB and C, they are independent from the proccessor and ASM which makes them interchangeable.