hey guys

well i'm new here and to ASM and i started using TASM. i've found it works great actually adn the syntax is perfect to use. but some day, i stroll around the internet and find all these other xASM compilers, where x is some letter, what the hell? i just wanna know which is best, why, which makes the best code and so on. i know many have probably asked this same question before but i'd appreciate it if somebody told me. i'm looking for a good DOS and Windows compiler, but so far they all seem to do that, so i guess that doens't help. i heard great things about NASM, but the syntax looks like shit so far. please help before i go insane and kill somebody and give up on programming.

thanks in advance
Posted on 2003-03-12 11:45:39 by Kobra
Try them all. Learn them all. Determine which one is most native to you. Mine is MASM. You should know what you need the assembler for: Win or Linux, small or easy-to-write, and several other things. My choice is for: Windows all API+easy-to-write+many already created macros that work perfectly+ I love Microsoft ;)
Posted on 2003-03-12 12:23:41 by Ultrano
Kobra,

You wrote:

> i'm looking for a good DOS and Windows compiler

I think you meant "assembler"

I suggest you to use Masm and Fasm,both of these tools are the most supported

Regards,

Vortex
Posted on 2003-03-13 04:09:17 by Vortex
let's see here...

A86/A386
TASM
MASM
FASM
CHASM (Cheap Assembler)
WASM (Watcom Assembler)
NBASM (New basic assembler)

Out of these, I'd say A386/TASM/FASM are the best.
Posted on 2003-03-13 05:10:38 by kairon

i'm looking for a good DOS and Windows compiler,


FASM because its a all-in-one multi-os solution and you can request new features in our forum here.
Posted on 2003-03-13 06:42:44 by bazik



FASM because its a all-in-one multi-os solution and you can request new features in our forum here.


Add debugging info to fasm so I'll consider using it. :grin: /hugs his MASM debuging info.


Me luvs debuging info.
Posted on 2003-03-13 07:17:18 by ThoughtCriminal

FASM because its a all-in-one multi-os solution and you can request new features in our forum here.


And is self-assembled, open-source, well conceived, small, fast and the most worthful: you will have the full control over your code.

And it is programmed by a clever person, not by a big company trying to suck your money away or to mantain a unviable information monopoly. :alright:
Posted on 2003-03-13 07:19:31 by pelaillo



Add debugging info to fasm so I'll consider using it. :grin: /hugs his MASM debuging info.


Me luvs debuging info.


/me only writes perfect code and does not need to debug

:grin:
Posted on 2003-03-13 07:26:39 by bazik
I don't agree that NASM's syntax "looks like shit". It's much cleaner, simpler, and coherent than MASM's syntax, for example. What I like about NASM is it's syntax, the fact that it works on many different OS's, the fact that it is being regularly updated (not when microsoft feels like it, as in MASM). MMX instructions were unavailable on MASM for a long time, for example (yeah, there were people who made some macros to emulate those instructions, but that's just an hack). I agree that MASM may have advantages when making lots of heavily structured code, for example, but as a pure assembler, I think NASM is the best.
Posted on 2003-03-13 08:27:09 by Knightmare



/me only writes perfect code and does not need to debug

:grin:



Didn't say I need it for debugging. I just like it when it looks nice and informative and my memory reference etc all have thier nice little names etc. :grin: Good looking debugging info is a work of art :alright:
Posted on 2003-03-13 12:24:19 by ThoughtCriminal