To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Wed, 8 Jan 1997 02:43:50 c:\
Subject:	Re: Intel ASM Possible
Message-ID:	<19970108.064001.4695.4.aclemmer@juno.com>
References:	<32CEF7D5 DOT 32F2 AT ix DOT netcom DOT com>
From:	aclemmer AT juno DOT com (Aaron m Clemmer)

On Tue, 07 Jan 1997 18:42:36 EST chambersb AT juno DOT com (Benjamin D Chambers)
writes:
>I've said it before, and I'll say it again...
>AT&T syntax makes more sense and is easier than Intel.
>YES, I did start on Intel (a few _years_ before using AT&T syntax, 
>actually.)
>If you know ASM, it shouldn't take more than a day or two to get the 
>basics, and after a week you shouldn't have any problems (unless you 
>use _really_ cryptic code).

I guess I"ll throw in my two cents... =)  I've used both syntaxs, and I
prefer Intel.  Some parts are strange (like 'dest, src', but you get used
to it), but all in all, Intel code ends up looking a lot cleaner and
easier to read... having all of these symbols scattered around your code
makes for hard reading, so I guess my reasons are based entirely on
artistic merit.  =) Oh, and not to mention the fact that converting to
AT&t by hand takes too much typing.

aaron

- Raw text -