Re: HLA
- From: Frank Kotler <fbkotler@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 10:33:50 -0400
brennan.vincent@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
I understand this point, Annie, however I disagree.
As well you might...
Although HLA may
not use the same syntax and mnemonics
The syntax is unusual. The mnemonics are straight from Intel (with one or two exceptions).
What mnemonics did you have in mind, Annie? Have you actually used HLA? Or is this another "phantom book review"?
as most assembly languages, my
point is mainly to learn the concepts and techniques involved, not the
syntax of a particular assembler. 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.
I expect you could. But why would you want to downgrade from HLA, which runs on 'Doze and Linux (with BSD and MacOS planned) to an assembler that runs only on MS's pointee-clickee abomination?
I think you'll find that HLA is more assembly language with a high-level veneer, than a HLL with an assembly veneer.
The syntax is weird - I don't like it at all! The operand-order (src, dest) is more like AT&T than Intel. But the mnemonics are "as usual". Anyone tells you different is either ignorant or lying.
Best,
Frank
.
- Prev by Date: Re: .EXE -> .ASM -> .EXE
- Next by Date: Re: .EXE -> .ASM -> .EXE
- Previous by thread: Re: HLA
- Next by thread: Re: HLA
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|