Index
> Main > Comparison of assemblersGoto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
| Author |
|
|
rugxulo 07 Oct 2007, 04:53
|
|||
07 Oct 2007, 04:53 |
|
|
bitRAKE 19 Oct 2007, 17:33
There are different types of coders and project requirements, so there will always be many assemblers. A solid assembler with source code is quite flexible, though - and will fill many needs.
For example, sometimes we have to work with existing code (that we didn't code ourselves, or don't remember coding, yuck (c: ). I compare the probable time to understand the code to the time to recode; and that determines what I do - this changes every moment. Learning to read code is just as important as learning to write good code. If we look at learning assembly then surely the body of code available and user base are the only factors - there are plenty of good languages that never got off the ground because of lack of user support, and bad language that are still used because of shear numbers (some would say English, lol). It's a fine line that Tomasz has managed to stay on the right side of, imho. |
|||
|
19 Oct 2007, 17:33 |
|
|
rugxulo 05 Dec 2007, 14:23
NASM 2.00 ("stable") finally released!
NASMDOC.TXT wrote:
|
|||
|
05 Dec 2007, 14:23 |
|
|
edfed 05 Dec 2007, 15:27
FASM, mainly FASMW, is the best.
don't try to argue. FASMW is the best. don't try to argue. FASMW is the best. don't try to argue. FASMW is the best. if mans are courageous, they can make a FASMW version for each OSes. like the MENUETOS Tinypad FASMWindow (Window doesn't mean for MS Windows) Quote:
|
|||
|
05 Dec 2007, 15:27 |
|
|
vid 05 Dec 2007, 16:15
edfed: Please don't spam us with things like this. Imagine how would forum look like if everyone would post such stuff. Ideal is to post if you have something helpful to say.
|
|||
|
05 Dec 2007, 16:15 |
|
|
edfed 05 Dec 2007, 16:35
it's helpfull cause it can help someone to choose the best assembler there is: FASMW
simple, easy to learn and logic syntax, simple interface, powerfull macro capabilities and open source! the paragraph about windows is just my feeling, i cannot ignore it as it is very important to say! |
|||
|
05 Dec 2007, 16:35 |
|
|
vid 05 Dec 2007, 16:39
But it is just your opinion. This thread wasn't intended to be about opinions. It was meant to be about FACTS.
|
|||
|
05 Dec 2007, 16:39 |
|
|
edfed 05 Dec 2007, 16:49
you play with words.
assembler comparision is only based on opinions. opinions are based on facts. the worse assembler is A86. not free, not open source, only DOS and bad syntax. |
|||
|
05 Dec 2007, 16:49 |
|
|
drhowarddrfine 05 Dec 2007, 17:23
Opinions may be based on "feelings" or opinions of others but all that may not be based on facts. If what you said about a86 is true, then those are facts, not opinions. If you say you believe A86 is a bad assembler based on those facts, it is still your opinion. If you say A86 is bad without knowing those facts, it is still your opinion but it is baseless.
|
|||
|
05 Dec 2007, 17:23 |
|
|
rugxulo 06 Dec 2007, 00:00
A86 is not bad, it has many good features:
But it only supports up through P3 (including some AMD stuff) and hasn't been updated since 2000. And yes, it's DOS only, not free, and only has very very very minimal hacks for Windows programming. Still, could be worse. Oh, and no namespaces (which Octavio then implemented in his own assembler). P.S. edfed, I think MASM is the worst (bloated, not "free", bad extended syntax). Actually, GAS' AT&T syntax is probably the worst syntax, but it's intended as a backend anyways. |
|||
|
06 Dec 2007, 00:00 |
|
|
rugxulo 06 Dec 2007, 00:07
BTW, YASM added this recently (2010):
Quote:
|
|||
|
06 Dec 2007, 00:07 |
|
|
OzzY 19 Jan 2008, 21:23
It seems NASM is getting updated now. So, what's the reason for YASM?
IMHO, FASM should support OMF format and debugging information ASAP to keep being the best assembler in the world!  |
|||
|
19 Jan 2008, 21:23 |
|
|
DOS386 20 Jan 2008, 01:50
> So, what's the reason for YASM?
Support of MA$M syntax (if ever) 
> IMHO, FASM should support OMF format and debugging information ASAP to keep being the best assembler in the world Yeah  |
|||
|
20 Jan 2008, 01:50 |
|
|
OzzY 22 Jan 2008, 05:17
I don't think yasm supports MA$M syntax yet.
It does support NASM syntax pretty well: Code: bits 32 global main extern MessageBoxA extern ExitProcess section .data mytit db 'The 32-bit world of Windows & assembler...', 0 mymsg db 'Hello World!', 0 section .text main: push 0 push mytit push mymsg push 0 call MessageBoxA push 0 call ExitProcess ret This code compiles with both YASM and NASM: Quote: nasm -f win32 test.asm or Quote: yasm -f win32 test.asm + Quote: golink -entry main test.obj user32.dll kernel32.dll BTW... golink is the best linker! No *.lib required! Only FASM is better (no linker)! 
Both NASM and YASM look pretty good. I wonder what are differences. They lack include files though to be usable. |
|||
|
22 Jan 2008, 05:17 |
|
|
TmX 23 Jan 2008, 12:09
OzzY wrote:
Try NASMX  |
|||
|
23 Jan 2008, 12:09 |
|
|
OzzY 23 Jan 2008, 20:46
There's a nice IDE with visual forms designer for MASM32 and GoASM here: http://www.easycode.cat/English/Download.htm
It would be great to have FASM support. Maybe we could ask the author about that? |
|||
|
23 Jan 2008, 20:46 |
|
|
Picnic 25 Jan 2008, 22:39
|
|||
|
25 Jan 2008, 22:39 |
|
|
OzzY 08 Feb 2008, 18:49
I've been trying lzasm recently. It works great as TASM ideal mode replacement.
It needs more documentation and a good message board to become really good though.  |
|||
|
08 Feb 2008, 18:49 |
|
|
Raedwulf 09 Feb 2008, 07:33
I think this needs to be updated, NASM is now alive again, and has x86_64 support - it looks damned tempting too!
|
|||
|
09 Feb 2008, 07:33 |
|
| Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|