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
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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