Author: Andrew Dados
Date: 12:03:05 02/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 28, 2000 at 07:30:45, leonid wrote: >On February 27, 2000 at 17:12:04, Dan Andersson wrote: > >>IMO = In My Opinion. >>I like nasm because it has a clear and logical (noncontradictory) way of dealing >>with indirection and allows aritmethic expressions (it even optimizes many >>cases). It also has a high level of abstraction, almost at C levels. Thus its >>easier to maintain than T/MASM. GAS as another example, is logical but hard to >>read and maitain. > >If you used the NASM for writing the chess game, mainly for Windows, will be >glad to know your opinion about capability of this Assembler and completeness of >its package. I never used it. And how about the susbstitute, if such existe, for >Software Development Kit that you need when writing for Windows on MASM or >Borland Assembler? > >Leonid. I wonder why one would want to write complete windows program in assembler... You can easy write a nice interface in MSVC or Delphi or even VB, and have several options of adding your assembler code: - linking asm *.obj files directly, or - inserting asm code in source (that for C and Delphi) or - putting your engine into a dll and separating it from interface completely. (I ran on several examples of writing a complete dll for windows in assembler... or you can write one main C file, make an asm from it and link it to your other asm code) That last option is most appealing and many (all?) commercials use it. -Andrew-
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.