Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    comp.lang.asm.x86    |    Ahh, the lost art of x86 assembly    |    4,675 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 4,044 of 4,675    |
|    Ned Latham to John    |
|    Re: Manual for current MASM    |
|    05 Apr 20 13:12:14    |
   
   From: nedlatham@nospicedham.woden.valhalla.oz   
      
   Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:   
   > Ned Latham wrote:   
   > > R.Wieser wrote:   
   > > > Ned,   
   > >   
   > > > > > My personal favorite was tasm, the assmbler shipped alongside   
   > > > > > Borland's Turbo languages.   
   > > > >   
   > > > > Mmm. Borland were good. I had Turbo Pascal on my CP/M machine.   
   > > >   
   > > > Don't be too sure of that.   
   > > >   
   > > > I still have-and-use Tasm32 v5.x , and over time have found a number   
   > > > of bugs in it. Some that did not seem to have any adverse effects,   
   > > > one which made it forget the remainder of the line, some which caused   
   > > > garbage to be generated, and others that just crashed either the   
   > > > assembler or linker. It also cannot load a register with a constant   
   > > > float or define wide strings ("db" for ASCII, nothing for wide   
   > > > strings).   
   > > >   
   > > > IOW, its "good enough" (as long as you stay aware of its quirks), but   
   > > > certainly not "good".   
   > >   
   > > Well, my experience of Borland *is* limited to Turbo Pascal for CP/M.   
   > > There was no assembler with it. (But CP/M had some pretty good ones.)   
   > >   
   > > As far as x86 assemblers go, I've only ever used MASM and a86.   
   > > MASM bad, a86 good; so good that I never looked beyond it.   
   >   
   > I never got into a86's quirks compared to masm back when I was learning   
   > x86;   
      
   Looking at what I wrote above, I think I need to add that it refers only   
   to programming under MSDOS.   
      
   > but going from masm to nasm just seemed nice, as nasm is less   
   > verbose hovever I dislike that one has to translate code from masm to   
   > nasm; especially if there are lots of addr[ix] --> [addr+ix] and changing   
   > dR 0 dup n to resR n (and then nasm complains that it's not initialised!)   
      
   LOL   
      
   Sorry, I just had to laugh. Reminded me of the godawful error messages   
   that some systems produce.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   
|
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca