Microsoft has redefined the term "Assembly" which makes me feel terrible when I try to search something about Assembly language with Google.
Microsoft redefined assembly to refer "building blocks of an application."
Why did they do so? Do they want  Assembly language to die?
If yes, will their intention succeed?
Posted on 2005-10-26 01:16:35 by guidry
No no, "assembly" definitely doesn't only refer to the asm language.
And don't worry, Microsoft would never want asm to die - it'll mean shooting themselves in the leg.

Just search with the words: asm, assembler, x86 asm, x64 asm,
and also most instructions' names can give lots of results: movq, fdiv, ...

imho, googling for is mainly usable for C++ projects/articles that include inline asm. There you can get snippets or ideas of good C/C++ coders (that use inline asm).
I google for asm only if I can't find an idea/snippet/implementation on this board, on masmforum and the other asm forums/boards listed here.
Posted on 2005-10-26 02:40:04 by Ultrano
They must have hired a vocal group of Eiffel (programming language) enthusiasts.

That is the first place where I've run across the use by computer programmers of "assembly" as "build".

But yes, assembly refers to more than ASM. We build airplanes in "assembly plants" and the defining (if not the first) implementation of an "assembly line" was in an automobile factory. Prebuilt bikes, furniture, and so forth come "requiring no assembly."
Posted on 2005-10-26 22:49:26 by tenkey