Date:	Fri, 22 May 1998 14:53:09 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-ID:	<199805221253.OAA24000@basement.replay.com>
Subject:	NASM? Thanks, but no thanks. (Was Re: Execution finished before started!)
From:	nobody AT REPLAY DOT COM (Anonymous)
Organization:	Replay Associates, L.L.P.
Mail-To-News-Contact:	postmaster AT nym DOT alias DOT net
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Lines:	68
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

In article <3564F658 DOT 66BC506C AT cartsys DOT com>,
  Nate Eldredge <nate AT cartsys DOT com> wrote:
> 
> Anonymous wrote:
> > But you can answer a question on a totally different topic:
> > 
> > How does one declare a definition for a structure (as you find in MASM or TASM)
> > using GNU assembler?  I have seen the "workarounds", and as far as I can tell,
> > those are just uniquely defined symbols pretending to be references to structure
> > members.
> 
> That's right, there's no inherent way to define structs. GNU as is
> mainly intended as a compiler back-end, and so is missing some features
> for people writing in assembler. You've seen the workarounds.
> 
> However, you may be able to use NASM instead. I haven't checked, but I
> would imagine it has some kind of structure support.
> -- 
> 
> Nate Eldredge
> nate AT cartsys DOT com
> 

I just downloaded NASM (v. .97 ?) and read the docs (HTML-formatted) and I think
I'll pass.

(1) It has a "system" for using structures, but the definition and instantiation
of structures actually appears to be (intentionally made?) more complex than
what you'd get by sticking with the "workarounds" in GNU as or by going to the
effort to hold an unlicensed (unpurchased) copy of TASM or MASM.  I will concede
that declaration of a record (or structure) does not amount to forcing the
allocation of memory space.

(2) It is really its own brand of assembler, using a hybrid of directives that the
developers apparently thought were useful but requires a "refcard" 5 pages long to
keep track.  This is not a sit-down-and-I-am-coding-in-5-minutes for experienced
assembly programmers who might want like to become familiar with all the directives
before they start doing any coding.

(3) It might be more useful if it had the ability to accept code in the ning that it
Bell Lab (AT&T/USL) instruction format.  But I did not read anywhere where it was
willing to assemble code unless it was written Intel-style.

I have to say one thing:  NASM's developers were right in making it available
without charge, since I can't imagine anyone buying something that hardly makes
assembly programming easier or "covers all the bases," which the name of this assembler
claims to do (but does not).

Having just said all that I said, and apparently not sparing any criticism, let me
now say this:

When it comes to things like using any particular ONE of the HUNDREDS of development
systems, I am a "bandwagon" type.  I will sit down this minute to use NASM if, say,
25 people in this newsgroup can tell me:

   "I was a regular user of [licensed/unlicensed copies of] TASM [or MASM],
     and when I found NASM, I felt like [name any feeling or event which
     is equivalent to having had the most intense experience of pleasure you can
     recall].

Let me hear too from people whose first (and only?) experience with an assembler 
has been with NASM.  The DJGPP group appears to take an active interest in promoting
the use of this assembler, and I really can't see why.  If you are an advocate,
I want to hear from you.

--- C ----

- Raw text -