Re: WhichAsm.html
- From: "randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 27 Nov 2006 09:07:47 -0800
vid512@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/AsmTools/WhichAsm.html
randy, you really SHOULD update this, to prove yourself as fair person.
There are actually a *lot* of things I should get around to doing to
Webster. But updating Webster is not a huge priority for me these days.
Over the past year, the *only* updates to the assembly side have been
posting HLA updates. Given my current work schedule, I doubt you'll see
much more than this over the next year.
But if you are so inclined, I will be more than happy to review any
comparison of assemblers *you* write for me and post it, if its
reasonable. Mind you, I'm not interested in corrections to the
existing stuff -- I know it's out of date, I just don't have the time
to fix it. But if you send me the HTML pages to post, and they're
reasonable, I will take the time to put them up.
And as for being a fair person --- who said I was fair? :-)
Seriously, I left out a *lot* of assemblers that could have been
mentioned. Some that are a *lot* more popular than, say, RosAsm. That's
hardly "fair", now, is it? Bottom line is that I only reported on the
stuff I actively studied a couple of years ago when I wrote the paper.
As for "just remove it because it's out of date", why? Yes, some of the
information is out of date. FASM has improved quite a bit since then
and other products have changed a bit (more books on NASM and Gas since
then, for example). But the basic comparison is still valid. The things
that are incorrect at this point are the details. The big picture is
still the same and for someone just coming into the area and wanting an
overview, the basic statement is still correct.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
.
- References:
- WhichAsm.html
- From: vid512@xxxxxxxxx
- WhichAsm.html
- Prev by Date: Re: WhichAsm.html
- Next by Date: Re: GeForce / ATI?
- Previous by thread: Re: WhichAsm.html
- Next by thread: MASM instructions
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|