assembler & ide choice 
Author Message
 assembler & ide choice

Im not asking which assembler is best because i know that will draw
flames, but I am new to assembly and am reading Art of Assembly so will
probibly end up using masm to learn but i was wondering if i could
switch to nasm easily i.e. is the syntax similar enough to learn AoA
with nasm also??
The other question i had was for people who use ide's which they feel is
the best and why?? (this question can be emailed to me if you want
because i dont realy want to start massive arguments :)
i want to eventualy use assembly for 16 and 32 bit non win32 programming
so if there is a good ide for that sort of thing thats mainly what im
looking for.
thanks..



Fri, 05 Sep 2003 14:26:45 GMT  
 assembler & ide choice

Quote:

> Im not asking which assembler is best because i know that will draw
> flames, but I am new to assembly and am reading Art of Assembly so will
> probibly end up using masm to learn but i was wondering if i could
> switch to nasm easily i.e. is the syntax similar enough to learn AoA
> with nasm also??

Nasm isn't *that* different. You can switch back and forth without too
much trouble if you want to. But for learning AoA, the differences might
be an extra source of confusion you don't need. I'd stick with Masm for
AoA - then switch to Nasm as soon as you're done :)

Latest Nasm: <http://nasm.2y.net/>.

Best,
Frank



Fri, 05 Sep 2003 16:20:25 GMT  
 assembler & ide choice
thanks for that :)..


Fri, 05 Sep 2003 17:30:01 GMT  
 assembler & ide choice


Quote:
> Im not asking which assembler is best because i know that will draw
> flames, but I am new to assembly and am reading Art of Assembly so will
> probibly end up using masm to learn but i was wondering if i could
> switch to nasm easily i.e. is the syntax similar enough to learn AoA
> with nasm also??
> The other question i had was for people who use ide's which they feel is
> the best and why?? (this question can be emailed to me if you want
> because i dont realy want to start massive arguments :)
> i want to eventualy use assembly for 16 and 32 bit non win32 programming
> so if there is a good ide for that sort of thing thats mainly what im
> looking for.
> thanks..

I would be willing to bet that most assembly programmers don't even
use an IDE.

I personally use CodeWright that has been tweaked for MASM and
HLA, but there are free system out there that are perfectly acceptable.
Of course, most of them run under Windows, if this is a problem.
Randy Hyde



Sun, 07 Sep 2003 00:39:21 GMT  
 assembler & ide choice
Actually I found that the best alround IDE you can get is UltraEdit or
EditPlus with some work you get syntax highlighning and all the tools you
need.
That's what I use. And assembler wise I use both TASM and MASM.


Sun, 07 Sep 2003 02:28:15 GMT  
 assembler & ide choice


   >I would be willing to bet that most assembly programmers
   >don't even use an IDE.

Amen.  =Real= assembly language programmers use a plain ol'
ASCII text editor.  We don' NEED no s{*filter*}king Eye-Dee-Eez.



Sun, 07 Sep 2003 05:47:33 GMT  
 assembler & ide choice

Quote:
>Actually I found that the best alround IDE you can get is UltraEdit or
>EditPlus with some work you get syntax highlighning and all the tools you
>need.
>That's what I use. And assembler wise I use both TASM and MASM.

Have you tried The Semware Editor?  (www.semware.com).  It comes built
in with Syntax Highlighting, programmable macros, a macro language
similar to Pascal and currently runs in a console window at whatever
maximum resolution is defined by the current video mode and font size
(I typically program in X=200 by Y=83 mode).

- Rick C. Hodgin



Sun, 07 Sep 2003 21:17:11 GMT  
 assembler & ide choice

Quote:


> >I would be willing to bet that most assembly programmers
> >don't even use an IDE.

> Amen.  =Real= assembly language programmers use a plain ol'
> ASCII text editor.  We don' NEED no s{*filter*}king Eye-Dee-Eez.

*Ahem*

I use Borland's C++ IDE for my assembly work (BC 4.52..._delibrately_ an old
version of the editor so that I just get the basic stuff and none of those
silly "wizards" and such :)...it's basically like using an ASCII text editor
(no syntax highlighting for non-C++ in this editor...I personally find that
syntax highlighting isn't that brilliant...lacking syntax highlighting makes
you actually =read= your code to look for typos and this can't be a bad
thing :) but I also have the _invaluable_ project tree stuff...if you are
doing a large project in ASM, then I'd strongly recommend some sort of tool
for keeping track of your files (MAKE is another option but the project tree
in Borland's IDE does everything MAKE can do but is a whole lot easier to
use...all drag and drop :) or you'll just end up unnecessarily confusing
yourself...

So I must be a "pseudo-real" assembly programmer or something because I do a
little bit of both :)

Beth :)



Sun, 07 Sep 2003 19:26:27 GMT  
 assembler & ide choice



   > > > I would be willing to bet that most assembly programmers
   > > > don't even use an IDE.
   >

   >
   > > Amen.  =Real= assembly language programmers use a plain ol'
   > > ASCII text editor.  We don' NEED no s{*filter*}king Eye-Dee-Eez.
   >
   > [...snip...]
   >
   >So I must be a "pseudo-real" assembly programmer or something
   >because I do a little bit of both :)

Awww, that's okay. :)  The remark, above, was just a deliberate bit
of renegade pedantry.



Mon, 08 Sep 2003 07:55:05 GMT  
 assembler & ide choice

Quote:
> Have you tried The Semware Editor?  (www.semware.com).

TSE32 is indeed a very good editor, especially is you are still used to the
Wordstar (qedit) keyboard commands, although it is fully configurable, of
course.

Although I tend to use NTEmacs more. Simple ASM mode with color syntax
highlighting, and direct jumping to errors works fine with MASM. Lot of
advantages, what I use most are dif mode, hex mode and the Version Control
interface. Not to mention spell checking of comments. Of course I use emacs
for my email and news as well as you can see :-)

--

--  Team-Ada        | web:   home.trouwweb.nl/Jerry
--  Paris, France   | Leiden, Holland



Sun, 07 Sep 2003 23:57:40 GMT  
 assembler & ide choice

Quote:

> Awww, that's okay. :)  The remark, above, was just a deliberate bit
> of renegade pedantry.

Have you ever seen the {*filter*}TV show called "Renegade"???

Well, the big problem is whenever I heard people use the word "Renegade", it
reminds me of that pile of TV {*filter*}and it's hard to take anyone seriously
after that...sorry...lol ;)

Beth :)



Mon, 08 Sep 2003 20:33:27 GMT  
 assembler & ide choice
Actually, only hard-headed programmers insist on a particular tool and
presume they are better off than those who choose other tools.  The real
fact, is that "real" programmers use whatever tool is available to "get the
job done".  It's also a matter of taste and preference.  Perhaps you prefer
Edit.com, but that doesn't make you any more real than... Randy Hyde, or Me,
or Beth, or Iczelion... etc.  Perhaps you could write hello world in notepad
and command line your happy self to an exe.  Okay... fine.  I can write
potentially the exact same source in an IDE of some sort and click a button
and boom... I'm compiled.  Is you'rs any more "real" than mine?

You can use a hammer, electric hammer, compression-based nail-gun, or a
stone to hit a nail while building a house.  Guess what???  If the nail is
in, you've solved the problem.  Perhaps if you use a stone it'll take longer
than a hammer.  But is that what's important?  A real programmer knows how
to use what tools are available.  If a "real" construction worker happens to
be where there is no hammer, a stone will do and the job is done.  Is he any
"less" of a carpenter for that reason?  Nope...

I respect your opinions.  I respect your preferences.  But simply because I
don't use edit.com and command line tools or whatever doesn't make me less
of a programmer.  We all program assembly, we all advocate its uses, we all
help out, we all satisfy our goals.  Therefore, we all should be happy and
not point fingures and start flames about who's "real" or not.  We all are
if we're getting it done.  Don't know about you, I just like to get it done
quicker and simpler so I can focus on more important stuff... =))

_Shawn


Quote:


>    >I would be willing to bet that most assembly programmers
>    >don't even use an IDE.

> Amen.  =Real= assembly language programmers use a plain ol'
> ASCII text editor.  We don' NEED no s{*filter*}king Eye-Dee-Eez.



Tue, 16 Sep 2003 06:33:16 GMT  
 assembler & ide choice
Awww... I like that show.  It's got it's Hollywood moments, but in all, I
liked it.  I also like La Femme Nikita.

_Shawn


Quote:

> > Awww, that's okay. :)  The remark, above, was just a deliberate bit
> > of renegade pedantry.

> Have you ever seen the {*filter*}TV show called "Renegade"???

> Well, the big problem is whenever I heard people use the word "Renegade",
it
> reminds me of that pile of TV {*filter*}and it's hard to take anyone seriously
> after that...sorry...lol ;)

> Beth :)



Tue, 16 Sep 2003 06:34:49 GMT  
 assembler & ide choice
Oh... sorry for the tone of my last... I didn't see your later post to Beth
=))

_Shawn


Quote:


>    >I would be willing to bet that most assembly programmers
>    >don't even use an IDE.

> Amen.  =Real= assembly language programmers use a plain ol'
> ASCII text editor.  We don' NEED no s{*filter*}king Eye-Dee-Eez.



Tue, 16 Sep 2003 06:37:44 GMT  
 assembler & ide choice


   >Oh... sorry for the tone of my last... I didn't see your later post
   >to Beth =))

Whatever...! :)



Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:21:36 GMT  
 
 [ 17 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

 Relevant Pages 

1. Assembler IDE

2. Good Win32 assembler IDE?

3. Announcement: ASM Edit v1.8 Powerful assembler IDE

4. windows assembler IDE

5. Assembler IDE

6. Turbo Assembler IDE released.

7. Any sources on writing an IDE in assembler??

8. Announcement: ASM Edit v1.8 Powerful assembler IDE

9. New Assembler IDE released

10. IDE for Turbo Assembler

11. Canterbury Modula-2 IDE & Debugger News

12. Direct hardware programming of IDE & SCSI

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software