djnorthyy wrote:
I agree with that 100%. When I mentioned reliabilty, I was mainly implying that it is easier to code badly in ASM than in C. This is because you are coding at a lower level, therefore there is more to take into consideration than when coding in a middle level language like C.
Personally I feel that it is down to personal preference. If you know ASM then go for ASM, if you know a language like C or C++ then go for that! It is all up to you.
Harry
I just wanted to clarify that ASM is not unreliable, and if you're good at it. Also, in C, I have to do a bit of a hack job (depending on compiler) to get certain things to work that are pretty trivial with ASM, which sucks when you try to cross compile in GCC, turbo c, tiny c and msvc
. I can just write it in NASM, compile to linkable file format, and it just works, i have no reason to ever use another assembler (unless it has a better/different object file format or something), however I have tried tasm, gasm, masm, and nasm, and have liked nasm the best for it's size, simplicity,syntax and output formats, but a lot of that is personal preference. Some people like AT&T assembly, I can't stand it, and I hate how GCC's inline assembly syntax is, I much prefer the old borland turbo C style inline asm, just type it in ASM like normal, and use your variable names like normal.