4 ms·
I initially learned the Intel syntax, and preferred it for awhile. But the more I work with non-x86 CPUs, the more I prefer AT&T just because it feels less diff
by jcalvinowens 4y ago
I initially learned the Intel syntax, and preferred it for awhile. But the more I work with non-x86 CPUs, the more I prefer AT&T just because it feels less different than everything else.
- aap_ 4y agoMuch agreed. Intel syntax just seems somewhat alien.
- secondcoming 4y agoBut all the Intel instruction documentation unsurprisingly uses the Intel syntax!
- yakaccount4 4y agoThat's interesting. My entire world revolves around x86 and ARM, so "Intel" syntax (which to me mostly means op dest, src) is what seems normal to me.
- aap_ 4y agoOrder of dst and src i have no strong feelings about, it's all the rest that i find weird about intel syntax.
- GeorgeTirebiter 4y agodest = src That's how I think of it. ALSO: I really do not like the MOV instruction; I much prefer LD. The Z-80 instruction names got everything mostly right.
- stevekemp 4y agoI started with Z80, and later moved to X86. To me intel order is the correct order, and everything else is weird and wrong!
- userbinator 4y agoIntel syntax is more similar to ARM, MIPS, and even RISC-V's official syntax than AT&T.