From: "Andrew Crabtree" Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: NASM? Thanks, but no thanks. (Was Re: Execution finished before started!) Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 11:26:19 -0700 Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Roseville Lines: 46 Message-ID: <6kf1g3$iu5$1@rosenews.rose.hp.com> References: <199805230935 DOT LAA07140 AT basement DOT replay DOT com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ros51675cra.rose.hp.com To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Precedence: bulk >In particular, they would like to attract MASM users, since they address the differences >and similarities between NASM and MASM throughout the documentation. I don't think Simon wants to attract anybody. He needed an assembler, didn't like what was out there, so he made his own and made it available to others if they want it. Most maintainers of free software aren't actively promoting that people use what they offer. >Gas is not a full-featured assembler like NASM/TASM/MASM, and >everyone concedes that. I don't concede anything. If you are programming for djgpp then gas is perfectly suitable. If you need more advanced features through gasp or M4 on top of it. > So being able to code in AT&T style--which I am accustomed > to doing One of the main reasons for nasm was for a good Intel style assembler. Most people who started out with 16 bit dos programming are intel style programmers. You can't expect the authors of nasm to program a feature they don't want. But, you have the source code, you can always add it yourself. >Here the authors are comparing their NASM to other assemblers. The >comment "Also, its syntax is horrible" is apparently a clear expression of >the authors' distaste for anything not in the Intel-style. Its not just source/destintation stuff. Look at the memory references. That and all the prefixes of '%' or '$'. But, if you like AT&T syntax stick with gas. >2. Use of src,dest rather than dest,src: complete novices are stupefied by > this notation (unless they read Hebrew or Chinese or some right->left rather > than left->right language). It seems more natural to me. Like in C code you would assign a = b translates to mov a,b. Assignment usually occurs on the left. >Andy, don't tell me you have never at any time of your existence found an >unlicensed copy of any software on a computer owned or used by you, and that you >did not even use it? I even register shareware too :) Seriously.