Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!srhqla!nrcvax!rick
From: rick@NRC.COM (Rick Wagner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: TASM vs MASM (Summary)
Message-ID: <478@nrcvax.NRC.COM>
Date: 23 Feb 90 19:47:01 GMT
References: <25E362E8.4236@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca>
Reply-To: rick@nrcvax.UUCP (Rick Wagner)
Organization: Network Research Corp., Oxnard CA
Lines: 38

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.