What I find interesting is the Flat Assember version number convention. I posted this to make people aware that the Flat Assembler Version Number was not getting anywhere near 2.0. There are over 60 different versions and none of them have a 2 at the beginning!

1.54, 1.55, 1.56, 1.57.....1.64, 1.65, 1.66...

Will the "1" at the end ever increase?
Is there some plan for a Flat Assembler 2.0 that I haven't heard about?

I think it's already said somewhere here on board, about Tomasz intention to code fasm2 which will be _very_ different from current one, atleast internals of fasm.

I'm happy with just minor version changing between builds.

what reason do you see to move to next major version?

just because everyone else do it?

Tomasz has strict versioning plan to follow. The 2.0 version will be a breakthrough. But look at 1.64 - the first version capable of compiling 64-bit code. It is not a coincidence also, as I remeber Tomasz saying this was done specially.

Reverend: Actually, the 1.64 version of FASM was the first to be able to output PE 64. 64-bit code was introduced in 1.61

Ah, you're right. But at least I remember the 1.64 version was special due to 64-bit technology

It seems that Privalov has indicated no plans to rewrite FASM anytime soon since his time is somewhat limited. BTW, version numbers are usually non-standard anyways (especially calling something 0.1, how ridiculous, but even I've done it!).

Where has this been said?

i think, if we able to see which version is newer - it is enough

Why not make it version 167, why waste a character the decimal point? Why not make it 0.167? Why not 167000.0?

My point is similar to shoorick's, the absolute value of the number is not important, just as long as the numbers get bigger for each new release is enough.

well if tomasz someday makes FASM2, THEN will the initial "1" have some meaning, while both versions are alive

Adam Kachwalla,
http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?t=5233&start=0

something about fasm2 there.