> the Intel x86 chip manuals or whatever you're targeting use the outrageously long proper names, so your assembly will too. I don't see why that has to be the

> the Intel x86 chip manuals or whatever you're targeting use the outrageously long proper names, so your assembly will too. I don't see why that has to be the case; why I'd must use Intel specified mnemonics instead of my own syntax? While not as radical, the att vs intel syntax demonstrates that the vendor syntax is not the only option. As long as the syntax captures all the details of instructions to be completely unambiguous then it should be perfectly interchangeable. I specifically do not desire higher level of abstraction because I want to maintain that 1:1 relation with the actual machine code. Heck, even Intel mnemonics do not truly have 1:1 relation to machine code, because the instruction (encoding) can depend on operand types.