Message-ID:	<00ea01bef675$14632140$5f83fea9@main>
From:	"Nick Read" <nickread AT primus DOT com DOT au>
To:	<djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
References:	<7pmoef$mjm$1 AT wanadoo DOT fr> <37CDAFCA DOT 944E93A7 AT swipnet DOT se> <37CDC58A DOT A8B0CEBA AT hmc DOT edu> <V1OHICAW0iz3Ewd5 AT xemu DOT demon DOT co DOT uk> <37CF01AE DOT 1BACA838 AT unb DOT ca>
Subject:	Re: Assembly tutorial
Date:	Sat, 4 Sep 1999 11:30:18 +1000
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

----- Original Message -----
From: Endlisnis <s257m AT unb DOT ca>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
To: <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 1999 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: Assembly tutorial


> Dave Bird wrote:
>
> > In article <37CDC58A DOT A8B0CEBA AT hmc DOT edu>, Nate Eldredge
> > <neldredge AT hmc DOT edu> writes
> > >> You should really consider using NASM instead, unless
> > >> you want your code to look cryptic :)
> > >
> > >Didn't C look cryptic before you learned it?
> > No, PL/M looked cryptic which is why I learned C instead.
>
>     Nothing looks cryptic compared to APL.

I disagree - have you ever seen some of the scripts in a Perl Obfuscation
competition!

Best Regards,
Nick Read

- Raw text -