Re: Skybuck's Wolfram (Turing-Like) Machine implementation

Orlando B. Salazar wrote:

....
And santosh has confessed to being a NASM user,

Confessed? I thought he was braggin'!

which, I see, you are #3 on the Development Team.

Deceptive. I'm a big wheel in the fan club, but "developer" is a stretch.

So, of course, you've got to say what you say.
Nothing's being said that can't be predicted, that's not preprogrammed.

The funny thing is, I figured you'd call me on supporting Santosh just because he's a Nasm user. Which proves your point. Maybe we could just use equates... or bitflags...

Regards,
Orlando B. Salazar

PS. By the way, I also use NASM. But I used HLA to learn assembly.

Well, that's evidence that using HLA doesn't "lock you in" to using HLA and never being able to use another assembler. What do you use Nasm for, in preference to HLA? What do you use HLA for, in preference to Nasm? Doesn't switching to the backward syntax (whichever one's backward) mess you up?

Best,
Frank
.

Relevant Pages