Thanks for the feedback, everyone
Edward wrote:Why not use FASM, I prefer it because it looks as though it would be easy(ish) to port to my OS. It also seems to support 64 bits.
Well, my next project involving assemblers will be a version of NASM, written in NASM. Unlike FASM, however, it will stick to being an actual macro assembler and not a low-level compiler.
Brynet-Inc wrote:os64dev wrote:why need yasm, gas works better
ahh... why do people have different tastes, it makes the world so complicated.
GAS syntax is great, But yasm supports both Intel and AT&T syntax..
But "Sorry" for being rude SpooK, I'm sure you worked hard on 64bit support, (
Which yasm, has had for a lonnng time now.. )
No offense taken, I am quite used to the myopic zealotry found commonly in close followers of BSD/GPL.
I completely despise the GPL and what it stands for, and I would choose a BSD license over GPL any day, but NASM is LGPL and I can live with that. In the end, licenses/contracts are just tools that only really matter to the authors, not the end users, anyway. If the zealots of the BSD/GPL wars actually gave a real damn about anything but their egos, they would release everything in to Public Domain
GAS (AT&T) syntax??? It reminds me of when my old dot-matrix printer would screw-up and print out garbage characters all over the place
Seriously though, there already is something that assembles GAS syntax. It is called, funnily enough,
GAS. In trying to support both NASM and GAS syntax, YASM is forcing itself to be two average tools instead of one great tool.
I think YASM will continue to suffer from "name recognition" (or lack there-of) and coupled with the amount of serious bugs it has, these factors will keep YASM from being as popular as it could be.
BTW, Bryant, how is YASM's RDOFF support coming. I've heard it was broken last time while NASM's works fully INCLUDING the new 64-bit support. Let me know what the situation is
Tyler wrote:@Brynet: A Single feature does not make the software... i have always felt a greater sense of pride in work done with NASM because it feels so clean and simplisitc. Of course, we all have our own opinions, if only one was right then everyone would use it.
Perhaps. I think, overall, to have more tools means we have more ways to complete tasks. Everyone wins, as long as people leave their egos at the door
Toaster wrote:pretty cool job
very good job SpooK, it would be really cool if you would continue the nasm project.
I think I've sparked enough interest for other developers to jump-in and seal 64-bit support (i.e. release an official "stable" version.) This is a better scenario, as I am going on a pretty long vacation starting next week
My next major work with NASM, beyond my upkeep of the
NASM32 Project, will be in the effort to make a version of NASM, written in NASM.
That's not my name SpooK... And YASM is fairly stable, It will gladly Assemble anything written originally for NASM.
