På Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:51:21 +0100, skrev Herbert Kleebauer
<klee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
> Betov wrote:
>> Herbert Kleebauer <klee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> écrivait news:45D422E4.FB953A76
>>
>> > For example, what do you think is easier to understand
>> > (as Betov would say, which one uses a more "full talking
>> > assembly syntax")
>>
>> You are right with doing a bit of provocation, because,
>
> That's not a provocation, it's nothing but the truth.
>
> You can't imagine anything by the letters "LODSB" when you
> didn't read the description of this instruction. To at least
> have an idea what's behind "move.b (r5.w)+-,r0" you don't
> need to read anything:
>
> It moves a byte from a source to a destination, where the
whats a byte, whats a bit, what is binary, whats a move. Whats a
destination. Whats is an adresss, what is memory, Whats a computer.
> address of the source is stored in the lower word of register r5
> and the destination is register r0. After the move r5.w
> is incremented or decremented.
Whats a register.
> Why do you think the 68k was much more popular for
> teaching assembly programming than the 8086 back in
> the good old day?
Because of the many nice games on it?
I agree that once I understand theese answers, your asm language is not
that bad, it is actually understandable. (maybe except from the branches
and the registers) Maybe intel syntax has more attraction, just because it
has more history. As i understand, you also must have quite a working
understanding of the intel syntax, and in addition, of mnemonics encoding,
or you wouldnt be able to read other applications as easily as you do. So
you are forced having to learning both.
--
|
