cs4g6aw@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Amos Yung) (02/18/90)
Greetings, earthlings.
I am in a process of choosing a pc assembler for a project and it comes
down to two choices: Turbo Assembler (TASM) form Borland and Microsoft
Assembler (MASM) for Microsoft. I personnally inclined to TASM becuase
it supports simplifed segment directives. But on the other hand, MASM
has been a standard for so long and it is probably safer.
Any opinion on TASM vs MASM? I appreciate any input via e-mail and I will
post a summary upon request.
--
Amos Yung | "Go sit on a PHASER!"
McMaster University|
cs4g6aw@130.113.1.1| - The guy who dressed like Geordi in "Night Court"
|darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) (02/19/90)
In article <25DDF17D.16028@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> cs4g6aw@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Amos Yung) writes: > >Greetings, earthlings. > >I am in a process of choosing a pc assembler for a project and it comes >down to two choices: Turbo Assembler (TASM) form Borland and Microsoft >Assembler (MASM) for Microsoft. I personnally inclined to TASM becuase >it supports simplifed segment directives. But on the other hand, MASM >has been a standard for so long and it is probably safer. > What makes you say MASM is safer than TASM? I'd go with TASM. I have used it and have found no problem assembling all my MASM code unchanged. The only thing I had to do was use the /mx (?) switch when linking to Turbo C modules because of the case handling. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain (darcy@druid) | Thank goodness we don't get all D'Arcy Cain Consulting | the government we pay for. West Hill, Ontario, Canada | (416) 281-6094 |
kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) (02/20/90)
In article <25DDF17D.16028@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> cs4g6aw@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Amos Yung) writes: >I personnally inclined to TASM becuase >it supports simplifed segment directives. But on the other hand, MASM >has been a standard for so long and it is probably safer. TASM probably supports simplified segment directives in order to be compatible with MASM, which has had simplified segment directives ever since 5.0. Chewey, get us outta here! kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov Jet Propeller Labs Kaleb Keithley
kize@cup.portal.com (Brian L Kaisner) (02/20/90)
I would recommend TASM. It is faster and includes Turbo Debugger, which is worth the price alone. If possible, you might want to wait a month or so, as TASM 2.0 is on the way from Borland. - Brian kize@cup.portal.com
cs4g6aw@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Amos Yung) (02/22/90)
About a week ago, I posted a request for information concerning which PC assembler, TASM vs MASM, is a better buy. Many people had responded to my quest for help with valuable information. I have also received e-mails that ask me to post the info that I've got. So there you go: <The followings are all the info I've got (included three articles on the net that discuss the same topic.) with some minor editing.> >TASM. You don't want to deal with MASM's bugs or lack of speed. >Both support simplified segement directives. You can write code for either >that won't assemble with the other. TASM is faster & cheaper. MASM is >"the standard". TASM supports TurboDebugger - a jewel of a program. Take >your pick. >Well, TASM is MASM compatible, and comes with what is, perhaps, the best >source-level debugger on a PC. Does that make your choice any easier? >I would go with TASM. You already mentioned that it supports simplified >segment directives, and this is true. Also, it is fully compatible with >MASM. It even supports MASM 'quirks', if you want it to. Also, TASM >is _much_ faster at assembling! It also comes with Turbo Debugger, which >is a great debugger. The only thing I can see about MASM is that it >supports OS/2 now, I think. TASM does not. >TASM is compatible with the latest MASM-versions, and in addition >it has it's own TASM-mode (wich I think is better, because of it's >strong checking). TASM is also faster than MASM. > >But... MASM comes with the best books, so the choice is yours! >IMHO TASM is the best buy. TASM is a superset of MASM, in fact it even includes >a "Quirks" mode to emulate the known quirks (read: bugs :-) of MASM 5.1. > >TASM is by far faster than MASM. >TASM is much nicer to work with than MASM, but it does have a bug. >It will very occasionally insert a segment overide which is not >needed. >I would choose TASM. The reason: Quality. I have been very happy >with the product. I have assembled quite a bit of code and had >virtually no problems. >I have TASM, but have not used it a lot. It does have a MASM mode that is >supposed to be 100% compatible. I like what I have seen so far. >If you choose TASM, I have written a batch file "integrated envionment" >that makes it easy to go through the 'edit-compile-edit' cycle. >E-mail me if you'd like a copy. >TASM will compile MASM code without modification. Personally, I much >prefer TASM and you get the Turbo Debugger which I have used successfully >to debug an interrupt service routine that I wrote in assembler. > >(Don't forget about the academic price for TASM.) > If you're using Microsoft languages, MASM comes with macros for mixed- >language programming. Codeview will work under OS/2, Turbo Debugger won't. >Turbo Debugger is, in other ways, vastly superior. TD also supports remote >debugging (two PC's) and virtual debugging (386's). >What makes you say MASM is safer than TASM? I'd go with TASM. I have >used it and have found no problem assembling all my MASM code unchanged. >The only thing I had to do was use the /mx (?) switch when linking to >Turbo C modules because of the case handling. >TASM probably supports simplified segment directives in order to be compatible >with MASM, which has had simplified segment directives ever since 5.0. >TASM allows you to conform to any MASM "standard" up to 5.1, go with TASM >and you get the best of both worlds. > >besides, TASM was made to work with the other Borland languages making >mixed language programming much easier. *********************************************************************** From the above responds, I think you will agree that the majority agreed that TASM is a much better buy in terms of compatiability, speed, debugging utilities and price. For the record, Borland 1, Microsoft zero. On a final note, I would wish to thank all fellow netters that responded (you know who you are) to my quest for help. Your input is deeply appreciated. On the other hand, for those who knew enough about the topic but was just not concern enough to help, I have only one thing to say: I know who you are and I know where you live. NO! NO! NO! Just Kidding!!!! :^) :^) :^) See! Smileys. -- Amos Yung | "Go sit on a PHASER!" McMaster University| cs4g6aw@130.113.1.1| - The guy who dressed like Geordi in "Night Court" |
rick@NRC.COM (Rick Wagner) (02/24/90)
In article <25E362E8.4236@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> cs4g6aw@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (Amos Yung) writes: . . . > >>TASM is compatible with the latest MASM-versions, and in addition >>it has it's own TASM-mode (wich I think is better, because of it's >>strong checking). TASM is also faster than MASM. Just out of curiosity, do many of you use the TASM "IDEAL" mode? I looked it over when I first got TASM; I liked the strong type checking, and the better structure definitions (the ability to use the same symbol in multiple structures! At last :) !). But I really dislike the way you have to bracket memory references, i.e., mov ax,[zot] And while I didn't notice in the manual (I didn't look to hard though), it seems like you have to say: mov ax, [zot+bx], instead of indexing: mov ax, zot[bx] Maybe 10 years of '86 programming has caused irreversable brain damage, but I prefer the old way for that. Back to the original question: how widely used is the TASM "IDEAL" mode? What are your opinions on it? Thanks, --rick -- =============================================================================== Rick Wagner Network Research Corp. rick@nrc.com 2380 North Rose Ave. (805) 485-2700 FAX: (805) 485-8204 Oxnard, CA 93030 Don't hate yourself in the morning; sleep til noon.
dhinds@portia.Stanford.EDU (David Hinds) (02/24/90)
In article <478@nrcvax.NRC.COM>, rick@NRC.COM (Rick Wagner) writes: > > Just out of curiosity, do many of you use the TASM "IDEAL" mode? I > looked it over when I first got TASM; I liked the strong type > checking, and the better structure definitions (the ability to use the > same symbol in multiple structures! At last :) !). But I really > dislike the way you have to bracket memory references... I guess I never got used to the strange and strongly error-inducing distinction between "variables" and "labels" in normal 80x86 assembly language. In Ideal mode, you have to type some extra brackets, but I find it easier to figure out what is going on, and easier to tell the assembler exactly what I want it to do. -David Hinds dhinds@portia.stanford.edu