Hi,   
      
   On Saturday, January 20, 2018 at 12:43:02 PM UTC-6, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:   
   > On 1/19/2018 9:49 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:   
   > > On 2018-01-19, Rick C. Hodgin  wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> I don't think I've ever tried fasm.   
   > >   
   > > fasm can produce executable without linker.   
   >   
   > I used to think the ability to generate code without a linker made   
   > more sense than requiring a linker.   
      
   For small utils, definitely.   
      
   > I've changed that philosophy   
   > over time because I see advantage in the ability to separately code   
   > and compile multiple parts to an application, and just re-compile   
   > the changed bits, then link them together.   
      
   Right, modularity is a good thing (unless you go insane and overdo it   
   and have thousands of files, which annoys me).   
      
   > If fasm has the linker built-in that's nice.  But, I think that a   
   > linker is part of the fundamental tool chain and is essential to   
   > robust software development, both from the application's needs pov,   
   > and from the developer's pov.   
      
   For FASM-only programs, you don't want a separate linker. But FASM   
   also offers linkable output (e.g. COFF or ELF), too. So you can   
   still link separately, if truly needed.   
      
   FASM is quirky but darn good (to say the least). I like the forum   
   a lot, too (which sadly has been down for two days). It's often   
   compared to NASM, similarly robust, but overall it's quite different.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)