Intel or AT&T syntax?

Attached: index.jpg (198x254, 15K)

Fuck off intel shill. I use ryzen

pajeet

>You can't make web apps, smartphone apps or any kind of relevant software using assembly
Not if you're a noob. Pic related was entirely coded in x86 assembly by wizard Chris Sawyer.
All programmers should strive for such greatness, or we'll ultimately end up with botched pajeetware only.

Attached: RollerCoaster Tycoon-2.jpg (1267x844, 573K)

It's the way the libc operands work. I'd rather have consistency than intuitiveness.

Attached: 292e3d5f844e98e0ce387e66b2192872.jpg (674x1024, 116K)

C was a mistake.

Attached: based and redpilled.gif (367x219, 523K)

intel. its not great but its much better than AT&T.

yeah i think i will choose intel syntax

My university teaches students AT&T syntax. Proffessor told me it is because it's harder to make mistakes (example register names must start with %) and it's also default asm syntax in gcc.

best is to know both imo

>Intel
that image is clearly labeled 'Intex'

Intel is better but I use AT&T because I'm a 25 year old boomer and I'm used to it. And since it's the default syntax in gcc, many project use it (e.g Linux).
Here's a good article about Intel syntax vs AT&T (and the GNU assembler in general): x86asm.net/articles/what-i-dislike-about-gas/index.html

Welcome to Intex systems.

stop posting this retarded example. he was very much using a higher level shitty M$ ASM macro language; at worst a step below C.

Intel by far.

It doesn't have the operands the wrong way around. Think if it like:

eax = 1

Very simple stuff. Fucking AT&T is retarded:

1 = eax

Intel syntax is the only thing they did right

Intel is shit

Intel.

all the GNU tools that deal with assembly have a command-line switch that makes them emit or accept Intel syntax, it's hardly like you have to jump through a painful hoop

AT&T is more like 1 -> eax, it makes more sense with the text flow

Intel

>t. pajeet

intel obviously. i have no idea why anyone would prefer AT&T

>You would have what you have today, if it wasn't for C.

In molecular biology, an indel is a insertion/deletion of a base.

intel is much cleaner

This.

Attached: 1532920622892.png (402x436, 23K)

Intel because it's what the official isa reference uses.

>t. idiot who can't write a hello world kernel

Good read, Intel's syntax does look easier to read, but AT&T's appears to give more control

I learned with AT&T syntax so that's what I prefer.

AT&T syntax.

Where tf is it even taught?

Intel has the arguments in the unintuitive order and AT&T looks to ASM as PHP does to C with all its dollar shit.

INTEL because that's what the Intel 86x64 programming books use. AT&T syntax isn't even real.

AT&T means Bell Labs, and Bell Labs is always right, so AT&T (without the GNU shit) it is.

intel syntax

Intel format is the only sane one.

Intel is only cleaner until you get to the size-modifying syntax. "mov WORD PTR [rax], ebx" is a lot uglier than "movl ebx, (%rax)". All that being said, I don't really get why either syntax wants to specify the size explicitly when they could just infer it from the register arguments.
The main advantage of using Intel syntax is that the instruction mnemonics match that of the manuals, whereas if you use AT&T syntax you may have trouble finding instructions. Other than that, they both have their ups and downs, and the only real reason I tend to use AT&T syntax is because it's the default on Linux and Unix.

Doesn't take long to setup a very basic web api with C++.

It's just a hassle to keep adding new features, but if it's something that doesn't have to change often, it's a better choice. Of course you'd want to create the prototype with node.js express, just to have an MVP though.

The AT&T x86 syntax was also designed to be directly reminiscent of PDP-11 assembly, so it is in fact doubly right.