Re: Why there are so many assemblers.

randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: 
Frank Kotler wrote:

randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

...

In the middle to late 1990s, the NASM
project was initiated to create a portable "Intel-like syntax" ["like"
is my addition, the original claims were "Intel syntax" but the actual
product falls far short of this)


From the Nasm manual...

http://home.comcast.net/~fbkotler/nasmdoc1.html#section-1.1

"Its syntax is designed to be simple and easy to understand, similar to
Intel's but less complex."

You don't have to make stuff up about what Nasm is "claiming"...

Best,
Frank



Sorry, Frank. But I was *there* when the NASM project began. I had a
lot of interest in the project and was following it until it was clear
they were deviating from Intel Syntax. The manual, written much later,
may be correct in terms of what NASM became, but that's not the
original intent. At least, not what I was led to believe circa
1996-1998.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde


Earliest "nasm.doc" I've got, from 0.91, dated 21-NOV-96, does not contain the verbiage quoted above. It *does* make quite clear that Nasm's syntax is not like Masm/Tasm's. Your frequent implication that the original Nasm developers tried to be "just like Masm", and were unable to do it, is not supported by fact, AFAIK.

Best,
Frank
.