Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!druid!darcy
From: darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: TASM vs MASM
Message-ID: <1990Feb18.182546.188@druid.uucp>
Date: 18 Feb 90 18:25:46 GMT
References: <25DDF17D.16028@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca>
Reply-To: darcy@druid.UUCP (D'Arcy J.M. Cain)
Organization: D'Arcy Cain Consulting, West Hill, Ontario
Lines: 20

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                     |