flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
![]() |
Author |
|
rCX
dreamer85 wrote: Why did you choose it over nasm for example that has a huge community? Nasm may have far more users, but it has less of a sense of community. I converted to fasm from nasm, during a time when nasm development had waned and its future was uncertain. (nasm development is now active again). Since fasm's syntax (except macro's) is similar to nasm's I was able to convert thousands of lines to it one sitting. Like nasm it is open-source runs on many platforms (at least the ones i'm interested in ![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
Teehee
I choose it by syntax. it's simplest to me.
_________________ Sorry if bad english. |
|||
![]() |
|
windwakr
FASM was the simplest for me to pick up and use. Everything needed to make the porgram is contained in the ASM file. No need for command line options or linkers. I also love the community.
|
|||
![]() |
|
LocoDelAssembly
The no-linker part was just enough for me to start using it (although I waited for the includes to evolve a bit before starting to use it actively)
|
|||
![]() |
|
baldr
It's an assembler (i.e. program to assemble parts into something whole under control of my perverted directions, not just another compiler from source). I regularly use it to create/parse/modify files of various formats (bitmap fonts, for example).
|
|||
![]() |
|
Borsuc
Because it doesn't need a linker, because the macro and assembly-directives are one of the most powerful I've ever seen in an assembler (you can even build a custom executable format with it easily) and because it's simple to compile.
|
|||
![]() |
|
Azu
It's the first and only one I've used, and from what I've heard about the others I wouldn't like them nearly as much (due to reasons already stated by other people above).
One of the things I hate about HLLs is how much of a pain it is to get something to compile. I like having something that just compiles what I put into it without any weird flags or extra steps or anything. |
|||
![]() |
|
DOS386
dreamer85 wrote: why FASM? Already asked 1'000'000'000 times: - Syntax - DOS support with IDE - Selfcompilable - Easy to use - Small bloat - Community / forum / Author accessibility - Lincense |
|||
![]() |
|
Madis731
You may have questions about the usability of some, but:
"Our users have posted a total of 99828 articles" ...and counting |
|||
![]() |
|
Artlav
Why not?
|
|||
![]() |
|
Fanael
baldr wrote: It's an assembler (i.e. program to assemble parts into something whole under control of my perverted directions, not just another compiler from source). |
|||
![]() |
|
bitRAKE
It just feels good - in a wicked power hungry kind of way.
![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
iic2
So, why FASM?
Why did you choose it over nasm for example that has a huge community? Just because these guys said-so. They don't need a gang to be the most popular on the block like (Ms-C#, C++ or Java). They don't even care. That's what blew me away. I now know there are things no assembler can do unless done in FASM, but I don't know about NASM and I have no time for it when FASM done completed 99.9999 of all I needed, with-out giving me lip for something that can be done when others say "CAN-NOT DO". No debugger, no linker, no nothing but what I been taught through this forum, including the asmcommunity and masm32. I now translate all to Fasm code to go beyond the speed of light, with no flaws. Give it your ALL until spring and see for yourself. Nobody/not many, hit FASM first, so you must be pretty tough anyway. |
|||
![]() |
|
< Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|
Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on GitHub, YouTube, Twitter.
Website powered by rwasa.