Index
> Main > flat assembler 1.71.17 |
| Author |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 27 Jan 2014, 18:33
This is only a cleanup release, and I plan to leave it as a stable one for some time. In the meantime I'm going to make some new development releases with any new features that I implement next.
The Windows/DOS packages also contain another cosmetic change - recently I had a thought that my assembly editor really should be called "flat editor 3", because it is a direct continuation of the editor design that I created for the first versions of fasm. I decided that this name actually has an advantage, because it is more distinctive - so starting with this release I changed it to use this name everywhere, and I used the version number 3.10 to reflect the state of its evolution. From now the editor component is going to have its own version number clearly stated (and common for fasmd and fasmw). The re-interpretation of historical versions of my editor goes like this: 0.9-1.0 were the original versions of flat editor, 2.x were the versions used by the Assembler Workplace and fasmw until July 2004 (called AsmEdit 1.x at the time), and 3.0 was the new version created in 2004 (initially I wanted to call it AsmEdit 2.0, but I never really started numbering its versions until now). |
|||
27 Jan 2014, 18:33 |
|
|
ManOfSteel 28 Jan 2014, 11:33
Thank you for your continued dedication, Tomasz. fasm is truly the best of the best!
|
|||
|
28 Jan 2014, 11:33 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar 29 Jan 2014, 14:36
sid123 wrote: One thing that I don't like about FASM is how the error messages are displayed, they are displayed one by one, as opposed to NASM's in which all errors are displayed at once. I like the NASM way, get rid of BS at once and for all, don't know if that could br taken into consideration. http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=633 (and also here: http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?p=3833#3833) sid123 wrote: Also, have you thought of better syntax highlighting (maybe?) I could make more configurable options that would allow others to customize it better, but I planned to keep fasmw lightweight and delegate such customization to plugins. Unfortunately I never really created that plugin system for fasmw because of some details that bothered me. I'm still thinking about it, though. |
|||
|
29 Jan 2014, 14:36 |
|
|
AsmGuru62 29 Jan 2014, 15:29
The idea to show all errors is nice, however, it is useful only if a developer writes an immense pile of code without
compiling it even once. Usually, it is the opposite way -- write some finished, but small code block and compile it, then repeat... until it is done. |
|||
|
29 Jan 2014, 15:29 |
|
|
system error 29 Jan 2014, 15:53
I think the current flat editor is good enough for most not-so-visual assembly programmers. I tried FreshLib (which is quite good) and Notepad++ but I have to go back to FASMW because I feel more comfortable with it. I am pretty sure many people here would agree with me.
|
|||
|
29 Jan 2014, 15:53 |
|
|
system error 29 Jan 2014, 16:09
sid123 wrote: One thing that I don't like about FASM is how the error messages are displayed, they are displayed one by one, as opposed to NASM's in which all errors are displayed at once. I like the NASM way, get rid of BS at once and for all, don't know if that could br taken into consideration. Also, have you thought of better syntax highlighting (maybe?) On the contrary, I think FASM reports error more meaningfully than NASM especially if you are using FASMW. I like the features where FASM points out exactly where the error lies and in which file. |
|||
|
29 Jan 2014, 16:09 |
|
|
sid123 30 Jan 2014, 06:49
Quote: I tried FreshLib (which is quite good) and Notepad++ but I have to go back to FASMW because I feel more comfortable with it. I am pretty sure many people here would agree with me. "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." - Leonardo da Vinci _________________ "Those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire https://github.com/Benderx2/R3X XD |
|||
|
30 Jan 2014, 06:49 |
|
|
HaHaAnonymous 30 Jan 2014, 11:18
[ Post removed by author. ]
Last edited by HaHaAnonymous on 28 Feb 2015, 18:23; edited 1 time in total |
|||
|
30 Jan 2014, 11:18 |
|
|
DOS386 01 Feb 2014, 07:50
sid123 wrote: One thing that I don't like about FASM is how the error messages are displayed, they are displayed one by one, as opposed to NASM's in which all errors are displayed at once. The effect of this "design" usually is that the compiler displays 1'000'000'000'000 errors despite there is only one compiler detectable BUG in your code  |
|||
|
01 Feb 2014, 07:50 |
|
< Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|