Re: Definitions - What are yours?

On Jul 31, 8:19 am, Betov <be...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"rh...@xxxxxxxxxx" <rh...@xxxxxxxxxx> écrivaitnews:1185890805.790552.308340@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

There are very simply HLL compilers that are far less complex
than some advanced assemblers (say, MASM).

This is a definition thread, clown. In a defintion thread,
MASM cannot be called an Assembler. It is a "Compiler for
Assembly Language".

Actually, *all* assemblers are compilers for assembly language.
That's the only reasonable definition of an "assembler" that works.
Remember, a "compiler" is a program that takes a source language and
translates it to some target language. Assemblers certainly fall into
this category. While there are certainly compilers that cannot be
called assemblers, all assemblers are examples of compilers. So
calling MASM a "compiler for Assembly Language" is the same thing as
saying MASM is an "assembler". Therefore, your statement above is
logically inconsistent (then again, that's par for the course for most
posts you make around here).


Not that far from an Assembler, but
nevertheless *not* an Assembler.

Once again, you confuse a language with the implementation of a
language. Perhaps you could make an argument that the "MASM language"
is not an assembly language. But if you're going to claim that the
MASM language is an "assembly language" (as you've done in the
previous paragraph), then you have to accept the fact that MASM is an
assembler. For an assembler is just a compiler that translates
assembly language to some other language.



Now, is MASM an "advanced" Compiler? How? why? where?

I guess it depends on what other compilers you compare it against.
Certainly, if you compare it against most assemblers (especially the
crop of hobbyist-created x86 assemblers) one could claim it is an
"advanced" compiler.



Where does MASM beat FASM, for example? Nowhere.

The macro facilities are better.
The compile-time language is better.
MASM supports high-level assembly features.
MASM supports data types far better than FASM.
The syntax is closer to Intel Syntax (for those who care).
There are far more real-world examples written MASM.
There are far more books, tutorials, and so on written for MASM.
The list goes on and on.

FASM does have some benefits over MASM, but trying to claim that MASM
never beats FASM is absolutely foolish.

All we
can see is the impressive amount of MASM defects, limits,
and inconvenients.

Why don't you emumerate all these defects, limits, and
"inconvenients" (sic)?
hLater,
Randy Hyde


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GAS struc
    ... >:It is a compiler for an assembly language. ... Uh, all assemblers *are* compilers. ... =>absolute machine code. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: assembler worth learning?
    ... PPC MAC but with a windows specific compiler, ... against it but that works between any language, ... NO runtime then you can use MASM libraries but with this much messing ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Localized Parameter Directive?
    ... > That would be nice for the others, but I'm working with MASM... ... is the most absurd choice you could ever do: ... is the worst of the available Assemblers (not a real ... Assembler, but a Compiler for Assembly Language), ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: assembler worth learning?
    ... coding capcity built into the compiler. ... willing to compete against the benchmark for the finished compiled ... fact that masm ports to PB reasonably well and as the language natiely ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Will HLA2.0 Support rosasm?
    ... > of self-compiling assemblers in the 1950's also exist. ... compiler features using your own compiler; ... the source language is irrelevant. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)