Re: HLA
- From: "santosh" <santosh.k83@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 29 Jun 2006 14:37:03 -0700
randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
brennan.vincent@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hi all,
I was wondering if anybody had some input on Randall Hyde's High Level
Assembly language. I want to learn assembly language, and although
there are assurances in his book that it's not simply a high-level
language with an assembly veneer, I'd like second opinions.
Well, to date no one has written a single 32-bit Windows or Linux
assembly language program with any other assembler than cannot be
directly translated into HLA. HLA has a superset of features found in
most of the x86 assemblers out there, so it is certainly the case that
you can do anything (and learn anything) with HLA that you can with any
other assemblers. The argument against HLA seems to center around all
the extra stuff appearing in HLA (most of which, BTW, appears in MASM
and TASM, as well). But if you're not interested in that extra stuff,
there's a simply policy you can follow -- don't use it.
Alas, but AoA *does* use it heavily. And AoA is the principal reason
why beginners choose HLA.
With that said, I admit that the vast majority of beginners would
*want* a HLL-like introduction to assembly. It's just that every once
in a while, you get a beginner who wants to learn assembly with AoA,
but doesn't like the heavy use of HLL-like constructs it makes of HLA.
I suppose they could always use AoA/16... or learn with another
assembler like NASM and then learn HLA with just the Reference Manual,
disregarding it's high-level capabilities. But then that would negate
the whole point of HLA's existence.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: HLA
- Next by Date: Re: HLA v1.82 is now available
- Previous by thread: Re: HLA
- Next by thread: Re: HLA
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
