3 ms·
How many of them have experience with other assembly languages? For me, it was exposure to M68k that made Intel syntax seem absolutely awful. AT&T syntax is al
by vidarh 2y ago
How many of them have experience with other assembly languages?
For me, it was exposure to M68k that made Intel syntax seem absolutely awful. AT&T syntax is also awful, but at least the operand order is the way that I'm (still) more used to.
- pclmulqdq 2y agoMany of the assembly writers have exposure across platforms, but often with modern assemblers whose syntax tracks Intel syntax more closely. I don't know why 68000 is so popular here (maybe people on HN learned it in school?), but you're far more likely to be writing ARM assembly or these days RISC-V assembly than writing for an antiquated core like the 68000. Believe it or not, outside the x86 world, Intel-style syntax has basically won.
- vidarh 2y agoBecause assembler used to be common, and isn't anymore, and because M68k assembler was nice to write, and because the Amiga and Atari were big once. I abandoned assembler when I switched to Linux and got my first PC because x86 assembler was so awful I couldn't bear working with it. AT&T syntax made it slightly less atrocious through familiarity, but only slightly.