Re: HLA
- From: "Dragontamer" <prtiglao@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Jun 2006 04:48:02 -0700
santosh wrote:
brennan.vincent@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
I'm sure that if HLA is truly an
assembly language, once I've learned it I'll be able to pick up MASM or
something like that in no time.
The reality is that once you've invested months of effort in thoroughly
learning an assembler, there's always considerable inertia in changing
over to another one. Each assembler is a fairly complicated beast,
especially ones like HLA and MASM.
If you doubt me, just observe the number of people in this group who've
learned an assembler and find it hard to switch to another, (or use,
comfortably, several, concurrently). Frank and me stuck with NASM,
Betov and Wannabee with RosAsm etc.
Now I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's harder than you think now.
In a sense it's also wasted effort, since it's assembly language that's
important, not a particular assembler. Hence having learned assembly
language thoroughly with an assembler, one tends to try as far as
possible stick with the known tool.
Sure, professionals, compiler writers and advanced amateurs do use more
than one assemblers, but it involves additional time and effort you'll
have to invest, (though not nearly as much as the first time, learning
assembly).
The true problem at hand though is not the actual assembly language;
there
isn't much difference between mov(dest, src) vs mov src dest etc. etc.
The main differences is the macros the assemblers use; and I guess the
mini-libraries that have been built on top of them.
--Dragontamer
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: asm program
- Next by Date: Re: .EXE -> .ASM -> .EXE
- Previous by thread: Re: HLA
- Next by thread: Re: HLA
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
