Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!j.cc.purdue.edu!brazil.psych.purdue.edu!zhou
From: zhou@brazil.psych.purdue.edu (Albert Zhou)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer
Subject: Re: Microsoft Assembler Complaints
Message-ID: <11547@j.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 23 Nov 90 14:14:40 GMT
References: <WEISS.90Nov19164930@toucan.lcs.mit.edu> <9078@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Sender: news@j.cc.purdue.edu
Reply-To: zhou@brazil.psych.purdue.edu (Albert Zhou)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Purdue University
Lines: 5

>Both OPTASM (by SLR Systems) and TASM (v2.0) are at least two or
>three times as fast as MASM, produce better code, and have more
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Isn't one-to-one translation from Assembly to machine codes. How come "better"
code?