FWIW, I prefer NASM myself also. I started out using A86/A386 a long time ago (before NASM and FASM even existed in a useful form) but my source code eventually got too big for A86 to handle. A86 doesn't take advantage of extended or expanded memory or protected mode so it can't handle large or complicated source files, plus it's not free.
When I started looking for a new Assembler, I compared FASM and NASM and a few others and chose NASM since it appeared to be the most appropriate for what I do in DOS. All Assemblers are a little different and all have their quirks and different things I like and don't like about them. I REALLY don't like MASM or its clones at all. Since then, I've converted a few of my older programs from A86 to NASM. I started with a "simple" program to see how hard it was to do the conversion, and it is quite difficult. As a result, I don't convert an existing program from A86 to NASM until and unless I have to. All of my new programs I do in NASM. Also FWIW, I still prefer the D86/D386 Debugger (though even it has its quirks). The Debugger is at least as, if not more, important as the Assembler itself. Bret ---------- Original Message ---------- From: "C. Masloch" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Freedos-user] Not sure is it possible - but maybe I'm missing something? Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 11:45:06 +0200 On 2019-05-09 18:02 +0200, ZB wrote: > BTW: which macroassembler you prefer? I prefer NASM. The reason I initially forked lDebug was actually to keep its source in the NASM dialect. Also, I adjusted the (default) disassembly display to mostly match NASM's syntax. Regards, ecm ____________________________________________________________ Chemical Linked to Popcorn Destroys Brain Health clearstateofmind.com http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/5cd59a0e506541a0e7be6st04vuc _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
