This article looks like a really high-level approach to assembly based on a few incorrect premises. Many of the sentences here seem to contain incorrect origin

This article looks like a really high-level approach to assembly based on a few incorrect premises. Many of the sentences here seem to contain incorrect original research or oversimplifications of the concepts required to understand assembly. For example, "So, processors run something call opcode, which basically means binary. Of course, not all processors are the same, but, to preserve some measure of sanity, there's something called x86 which is a specification which gives some guidelines about opcode." Additionally, Jumping to _start really isn't recursion in the sense of "calling a function from within itself," it's a jump to a named location in code- by the definition laid out in the article, loops are a form of recursion. It's also a bit disingenuous to say that GAS (or AT&T syntax) is not meant to be written by developers, and that it was developed as a backend to GCC. While the latter may be true it does not necessarily reflect on the usability or accessibility of the language or the dialect.