Index
> Main > FASM vs. NASM vs. MASMGoto page 1, 2 Next |
| Author |
|
|
AsmGuru62 14 Jan 2014, 18:02
I dropped TASM for the following reasons:
1. FASM has no linker --> one building step (less hassle to create a working code). 2. FASM is extremely fast: it takes a second or two to build a 100K EXE file - a LOT of lines!!. |
|||
14 Jan 2014, 18:02 |
|
|
upsurt 14 Jan 2014, 18:54
Thank you, AsmGuru62!
Does NASM need a linker? |
|||
|
14 Jan 2014, 18:54 |
|
|
upsurt 14 Jan 2014, 20:15
I just started with FASM and I really like it so far
 |
|||
|
14 Jan 2014, 20:15 |
|
|
Picnic 14 Jan 2014, 20:23
Hi upsurt, welcome to forum.
Here some related topics to read. Design Principles, or Why fasm Is Different Why do you like FASM? Comparison of assemblers FASM vs. NASM Which Assembler is better? Best x86 Assembler (excluding FASM) |
|||
|
14 Jan 2014, 20:23 |
|
|
upsurt 14 Jan 2014, 20:51
Hi Picnic. Thank you very much!
|
|||
|
14 Jan 2014, 20:51 |
|
|
TmX 15 Jan 2014, 01:36
AsmGuru62 wrote: 1. FASM has no linker --> one building step (less hassle to create a working code). If I'm not mistaken, Tomasz stated that FASM has a built-in linker. Unfortunately this feature is Windows only. |
|||
|
15 Jan 2014, 01:36 |
|
|
LocoDelAssembly 15 Jan 2014, 03:12
Not quite accurate. It is true that Windows programs written in fasm can be linked against DLLs, but that is because of the flexibility of the PE formatter which allows you to write your own import section, and not specially purposed directives (like extrn in object formats) that allows you to reference external code/data/symbols.
|
|||
|
15 Jan 2014, 03:12 |
|
|
TmX 15 Jan 2014, 04:00
LocoDelAssembly wrote: Not quite accurate. It is true that Windows programs written in fasm can be linked against DLLs, but that is because of the flexibility of the PE formatter which allows you to write your own import section Thanks for your correction. LocoDelAssembly wrote:
which is why a linker (polink, golink, etc) is needed, right? |
|||
|
15 Jan 2014, 04:00 |
|
|
LocoDelAssembly 15 Jan 2014, 06:06
If you use one of the object formats and you want to produce an executable out of them then you'll need something to do the linking. A linker is one option, but by taking advantage of the file directive plus the virtual directive plus the interpreted language of fasm, you could get some sort of built-in linker, with the extra benefit of supporting static linking, something that is currently not possible with the standard set of macros which only allow dynamic linking. Don't know if someone attempted this, I've been out way too long...
|
|||
|
15 Jan 2014, 06:06 |
|
|
revolution 15 Jan 2014, 06:29
LocoDelAssembly wrote: Don't know if someone attempted this, I've been out way too long... |
|||
|
15 Jan 2014, 06:29 |
|
|
m3ntal 15 Jan 2014, 13:46
Just some reasons why I use FASM:
* Supports ANY/ALL CPUs+OSs (that you define) * Written in 100% FASM assembler * Efficient source code. NASM's C/C++ source is wasteful, poorly written, using massive structures to represent instructions. At the time FASM was released in 99'-00', I was writing a long list of reasons "Why I hate NASM" (its source code) and was using MASM reluctantly (mostly VESA+DirectX) * Powerful macro system * Fastest processing speed. Compare to SLOW MASM+NASM. See for yourself * Updated to support latest CPU instructions * Editable, redistributable. See LICENSE.TXT * Lightweight, one executable. MASM is a big bloated package * Used to create OSs, programs, games, more impressive projects than any other assembler. Just look at what users have created with FASM. MASM's restrictive license: http://www.masm32.com/license.htm Quote: The MASM32 project cannot be used to create open source software. 3. None of its components or source code are redistributable. 4. You cannot use the MASM32 Project to write software for Non-Microsoft Operating Systems |
|||
|
15 Jan 2014, 13:46 |
|
|
sid123 15 Jan 2014, 15:10
@m3ntal I agree to all except that MASM and MASM32 are 2 different things. MASM32 is written in MASM.
Check this page : http://wiki.osdev.org/MASM Quote: NOTE: Using MASM for operating system development is not prohibited in the license agreement although you may sometimes hear that. This is because people often confuse the MASM and MASM32 licenses; they are 2 unrelated projects. Some points : NASM is too hungry, 893KB!! Is it what is supposed to be a size of an assembler? Being a developer of an OS I would say it's too much, I have ported FASM finally (sort of), to my OS and I'm trying to translate all my code to FASM. MASM never used it and will never, who needs MASM when there's already NASM and FASM. FASM requires less syscalls, no C libraries, or C++ libs. Self assembling ability, I can compile FASM under my "own" OS, since I've ported it. Community and docs, FASM was/is/will have the best docs and community. Intention, FASM wasn't created to take over all assemblers, I guess it was made to overcome some limitations of other assemblers. FASM is future, I guess it's creation is very similar to that of Linux. |
|||
|
15 Jan 2014, 15:10 |
|
|
dogman 15 Jan 2014, 17:21
m3ntal wrote: Just some reasons why I use FASM: What does "(that you define)" mean? _________________ Sources? Ahahaha! We don't need no stinkin' sources! |
|||
|
15 Jan 2014, 17:21 |
|
|
m3ntal 15 Jan 2014, 17:45
dogman: Any instructions that are defined by macros. See Magic-ARM assembler and Java assembler, both written in FASM X86.
sid123: I'm referring to MASM32. M$ confuses people by having hidden separate licenses. Search google for "MASM license". Which one appears at the top of the list? Which one do most users read? Quote: Being a developer of an OS... |
|||
|
15 Jan 2014, 17:45 |
|
|
cod3b453 15 Jan 2014, 18:59
I personally prefer the syntax and handling of certain special cases like:
Code: cmp eax,'WORD' db (('0123' shr 8) and $F) |
|||
|
15 Jan 2014, 18:59 |
|
|
sleepsleep 15 Jan 2014, 20:33
/me waiting for next generation assembler,
i could see so huge space for more intelligent, simpler, beautiful, assembler, maybe i see an objective like below, a good assembler should be the one that people have almost zero question to begin, they feel so natural to thoughts, easy to pick up, ..... |
|||
|
15 Jan 2014, 20:33 |
|
|
semmir 16 Jan 2014, 06:14
Hi upsurt
If you used MASM32 you could think about using JWASM. It's almost 100% compatibile assembler with MASM for 32/64 bits and many OSes(Linux too). It's not restrictive as MASM. It is free and opensource project. http://japheth.de/ |
|||
|
16 Jan 2014, 06:14 |
|
|
sid123 16 Jan 2014, 07:20
Quote: A "developer" is not one who takes source code written by different people then claims it as their own. Well I call that "reusing" code rather than copy-paste. Linus Torvalds himself says that he mostly merges code from other developers. And I never claim other's code as my own. From my Website wrote:
WINLIB is written by me, PCGUI is written by me, The OS Loader is written by me, EXTFLOPPY Services are written by me, what else? (I know none of you guys know what I am talking about  ),
Even for the smallest things I've given credit? Did I take any of your code? If I did, sorry. Please tell me that I did. Also, if you look at the source code : Quote:
Quote: Real Programmers Well Real Programmers theoretically(in dreams) learn by reading books and manuals, but tell me, how many of you guys haven't used external sources as a means of learning, PS. Please, I am not Dex, I can't stand arguments. _________________ "Those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire https://github.com/Benderx2/R3X XD |
|||
|
16 Jan 2014, 07:20 |
|
|
dogman 16 Jan 2014, 10:50
m3ntal wrote: dogman: Any instructions that are defined by macros. That hardly means any and all CPU or OS. You do realize there is more to life than Windows/Linux and Intel/ARM...even if those things win on pure numbers. m3ntal wrote: Real programmers can write their own code. A "developer" is not one who takes source code written by different people then claims it as their own. I agree with you but things changed dramatically because of C and especially C++ and Java which all promote reliance on so many libraries that now sadly most "developers" are just cut-and-paste jockeys. Many big pieces of software are a little code invoking 10,000 classes or 10,000 library calls. Even assembly developers get stuck with this in *NIX (maybe Windows also, I have no idea) since the syscalls are not very helpful and people really need to use libc or spend their lives writing services the OS should have provided in the first place. _________________ Sources? Ahahaha! We don't need no stinkin' sources! |
|||
|
16 Jan 2014, 10:50 |
|
| Goto page 1, 2 Next < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|