Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:30:31 -0400
"Herbert Kleebauer" <klee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:48B1B26D.664B6C21@xxxxxxxxxxxx
It is a real bad idea to to write an assembler
(or part of it) in assembly language and therefore make it CPU dependent.
Doesn't saying this irritate assembly programmers?
Isn't the perspective of assembly programmers today to eliminate the use of
high level languages? Isn't an assembler in C an anethema?
C is built using assembly. But, it seems that you're saying that assembly
programmers can't create an assembly language independent of the CPU... If
assembly language programmers can't create from assembly the abilities that
a high level language implemented using assembly has - like C, should they
really be programming in assembly? I.e., doesn't this imply their skillset
would be served by a more powerful or more abstracted language created by a
prior generation of programmers who (apparently) were more skilled in
assembly? ;-)
Because the number of assemblers is already larger than the
number of assembly programmers, this really doesn't matter.
And, the few who are left seem to use their own syntax... making matters
even worse. ;-)
Rod Pemberton
.
- References:
- NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Frank Kotler
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Herbert Kleebauer
- Re: Windela
- From: Rod Pemberton
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Herbert Kleebauer
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Chuck Crayne
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: Herbert Kleebauer
- Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- From: NathanCBaker
- NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- Prev by Date: Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- Next by Date: Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- Previous by thread: Re: NASM 0.98.39 vs. NASM 2.03.01 disassembly
- Next by thread: Re: NASM preprocessor
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|