flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
![]() |
Nasm or Fasm? | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Total Votes : 33 |
Author |
|
Madis731 30 Jun 2004, 08:35
Well, about (dis)advantages you can consult
=> http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=1422 but some people (like me ![]() ![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
crc 30 Jun 2004, 10:07
I recently switched all of my assembly development to FASM. Prior to this I used NASM for everything. Why the switch?
1) License -- BSD-like as opposed to LGPL (this is a personal preference) 2) Speed -- FASM is much faster than NASM 3) Updates -- FASM is updated more frequently 4) Quality -- There are fewer bugs and they are fixed faster in FASM 5) Portability -- With the new LIBC backed port, FASM can run anywhere NASM can (e.g., Linux, Windows, DOS, FreeBSD, BeOS, and others) 6) Community -- the FASM community is very helpful, the NASM community much less so 7) Formats -- FASM can generate relocatable ELF, ELF executables, PE, MZ, linear binaries (.COM & .BIN), and maybe others, without needing any extra tools (Like linkers) I'm probably a little biased, but the above is my view on the current state of things. ![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
scientica 30 Jun 2004, 12:14
Well, when I first started asm I was homed in to nasm, but then as I saw that nasm was/is pretty dead, I had little choice but to go with masm (which was fine at the time, as I was on windows back then), then after some time I got my eyes on fasm, and I really started to like it (I saw many smimilaryties with nasm), and as fasm still is under development and has features I don't recall nasm had.
I'd say that fasm outperformes nasm, and stands very well - well there would be one area where nasm is greater than fasm, and that's that nasm is perhaps more wide spread/know than fasm in current days, but that's subject to changge as fasm is spreading and getting more and more know every clock tick. ![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
pelaillo 30 Jun 2004, 12:53
1 to 7 are applicable in my case and also:
8 ) Source code: Fasm is written in Fasm. This is self-confidence. 9 ) Simplicity: All options and tweaks are inside sources. No command line options and external def files. 10) Integration: Fasm does not need resource editors, linkers,... 11) Size: It is very small and there are many advantages with this single fact. Last edited by pelaillo on 08 Jul 2004, 12:44; edited 1 time in total |
|||
![]() |
|
crc 30 Jun 2004, 12:57
I'll agree with points 8 to 11 as well! I *did* (briefly) mention the integration in point 7!
![]() Last edited by crc on 30 Jun 2004, 15:25; edited 1 time in total |
|||
![]() |
|
comrade 30 Jun 2004, 13:14
5) is questionable
NASM is c-programmed, and can compile x86 asm code on any processor please correct me if i am wrong |
|||
![]() |
|
decard 30 Jun 2004, 13:23
Right, but so what? It is a rare situation when you write your code for x86 on different architecture processor. Coding assembler with assembler has many more important advantages. It also shows that even such big and advanced (FASM uses advanced algorithms for parsing for example) projects can be written in pure assembly.
But, OTOH, it is a fact that NASM is more portable. |
|||
![]() |
|
Dragontamer 30 Jun 2004, 14:04
I see what he means though.
He is just pointing out that number 5 is wrong. Nasm and Fasm are both blazing fast assemblers (all assemblers are, really) so speed shouldn't really concern me. It is a good plus from my point... Now what really hit me, that makes me want to switch over is the fact that Fasm had about 5 or so updates since the last update of Nasm, so i can see where bugs/support come in. One last question before i decide which for myself is better, Are there any major books or etc geared toward an intermediate/beginner that uses Fasm? Sure, documentation is good but tuturials and etc are better for my purposes. |
|||
![]() |
|
crc 30 Jun 2004, 15:28
I conceed point 5 - FASM isn't quite as portable, but it does run on pretty much any sane x86 OS now.
![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
Bitdog 04 Jul 2004, 13:49
CRC's first message, quite stated it all for me.
Might I add that, the conversion from Nasm to Fasm of all my source code include files was very easy since the source for both are quite similuar. ALSO, with Fasm you have this message board. In the future, you too might find it very helpfull and informitive also, (like no other available) + The IQ here is awesome & attracts same. |
|||
![]() |
|
Dragontamer 06 Jul 2004, 16:10
I can't seem to find the licence for Fasm.
Anyone have a link? |
|||
![]() |
|
Vortex 06 Jul 2004, 16:49
All the Fasm packages (zip files) contains the license.
_________________ Code it... That's all... |
|||
![]() |
|
crc 07 Jul 2004, 12:36
See the attachment for the latest version of the License (essentially a BSD-like one IIRC)
|
|||||||||||
![]() |
|
eet_1024 19 Jul 2004, 07:11
I see adhered is still misspelled as aheared.
|
|||
![]() |
|
< Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|
Copyright © 1999-2025, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on GitHub, YouTube.
Website powered by rwasa.