assemblers,
with whom we should live.
Vishev Alex/MSD/9.12.99(c)
Hello everyone. Today I will spoil you with a quality comparison
characteristic characteristics of various assemblers, which are now
so many have divorced that choosing your own system in which to pro-
walking is a big and by far the best part of life, is the
mining I would like to immediately say a few words about the fact that
It occurred to me to sit down with a text editor. So let's get started
pim.
It was cold
Here we are somehow standing on a cloud. It's cold, my dear. Max as usual
loads some citizen for new disk drives
dullness. This is where it all happened. A man comes up and
asks Max for the GENS assembler (old-timers remember). I'm co-
I’ve certainly never been particularly faint of heart. But such a blow.
Hey people! Why are you crazy? This thing is hopelessly outdated
five years ago.
When I asked why GENS specifically, he said that
there is a DESCRIPTION for it (what is the syllable, what is the rhyme). Like this.
From cold to warm
I remember about five years ago I had a SINCLAIR 48. Here
That’s when my search for a suitable assembler began.
That's when I got ZEUS. I want to say right away that
forin its time it was simply magnificent. He occupied
as I remember something about seven kilobytes and had 32 sim-
ox in the line (which is certainly better than 64). Another advantage
I remember the fairly high speed of compilation and com-
compact arrangement of text in memory. So if you're sitting
at 48(?) you won't find anything better.
The years go by
And Tasm was born. What can I say about him...? 64
character in a line. So, if you don't mind your eyesight -
You are welcome. And in more detail, we see quite
slow editor. Compilation speed (for 2.0)
slightly faster than ZEUS. There is, however, loading files from disk
(when compiled). I don't understand why, but many people like it. Che-
Why talk so much about him is a thing of the past...
(according to the classics).
City on Niva
If my memory serves me correctly (why would it?), then the most
the fast and sophisticated version of Tasm (4.0) has been remade into
St. Petersburg by the XLD group. I remember there was support from some
undocumented processor commands, and the speed of the computer
lations increased by 20 percent. However, they remained the same
disc brake options.
Clones
Guess three times. Right! Masm and Alasm.What are we here
do we have? We have an editor that looks suspiciously like Tasm's -
cue 64 characters per line (oh my God!). The only differences, in my opinion, are
in the initial menu service. There are all sorts of font loadings etc.
In truth, it should be noted that Alasm has a very decent
high compilation speed, page switching directives
memory and compilation of code in them. Although on my ZS256 at startup
only 128 are detected. Ukraine after all. Pentagons...
Competition is the engine of trade
The penultimate point, but not the most boring. On the agenda
today's ZX ASM and XAS. Let's start from the beginning. ZX ASM. What are we
we see here. We see here the compilation speed is 1.5-2 times
faster than TASM 3.0, 1.4 times faster than TASM 4.0,
1.1-1.3 than MASM. 42 characters per line, which is nice. Also
I'm pleased with the whole set of conditional compilation directives. Window
the interface and service evoke favorable reviews. B
in particular, in the service you can customize all colors, change
font etc. The presence of absence is upsetting (what kind of verbal
g) auto-tagging lines after input, slow speed of re-
daktor, braked disc options. Also upsets the buffer
under the text, which, with large sources, is constantly
The label buffer crawls (5 bytes + number of characters, however). About ZX
ASM is everything. Next.
The same XAS 7.43r in which I am sitting. I can talk about
himindefinitely. Let's start as usual with speed. In 4.4
times faster than TASM 3.0, 3.5-4 times faster than TASM 4.0, in
3 times faster than MASM. Convenient editor with automatic layout
ki, fast disk options, buffer for 1820 marks, text in
two windows (very convenient), possibility of short dialing
tax (enter A C - get LD A,C), the presence of macros (not
I use), convenient functions for marking a line with an error, complete
a set of conditional compilation directives. The disadvantages include:
mark lack of extended memory usage (as in
ALASM) and a slow (compared to STORM) editor.
What does the coming day have in store for us?
STORM. First, I’ll tell you about the editor: scrolling into a frame
(can’t be faster), five frame pages, disk
procedures - turbo (however, some discs are terribly glitchy)
chat). The compilation speed is by far the highest.
Convenient editor: 40 characters per line with automatic layout. Juice
Advanced typing has been expanded compared to XAS. Te-
Now you can type this: nz metka, and get JR NZ,METKA.
Built-in macros like LD BC,HL (compiled as LD
B,H:LD C,L). Ability to set the circulation of a line etc. Main
its drawback today is the lack of support
ki additional memory (since the system itself with such settings
gate takes up a lot of space). In version1.0 if not
I'm wrong, there are only 16 kilobytes for text. We will
wait.
Vishev Alex/MSD/9.12.99(c)
Share your thoughts about the article