>>18, 19
actually no, x86 is badly documented because it's cobbled together with different instruction set extensions and at that point nobody even knows what's happening under the hood (see the link in
>>17).
x86 is like windows, OOP or XML - it's 'good' because it's everywhere and you often simply don't have much choice. it's also a lot like C in that it has a fairly understandable base onto which a lot of crap was added as the requirements and expectations started to change. ubiquity and backwards compatibility are an upside but the downside is the messy architecture, a metric fuckton of obscure instruction and the aforementioned fact you don't actually know what is going on at the hardware level.
also
It was also my first programming language, so it is easy to learn.
depending on when you learned it, it might have been the case. if you're a 16-bit era oldfag then yeah, it was far easier than it's now.