Myths about MASM

http://www.masm32.com/myths.htm

FASM is better
http://flatassembler.net/

assemble my anus

It's truly a shame I know all about MASM without even knowing python

>>4
Is that really bad? I'm working on a BASIC compiler using nothing but Fasm macros and I have never even tried learning about Python. I couldn't even do a hello world with it right now without looking it up. I'm just not interested in it or in following the latest fads.

>>1
I would disagree with item 7. MASM code with high level constructs like proc in evidence truly does feel almost like a baroque C dialect in some ways. A good C compiler (e.g., Watcom) largely eliminates the need for most of MASM's advanced features. If any had been available in Microsoft's early days I doubt MASM would have evolved in the direction that it did.

fasm > nasm > tasm > masm >>> gas

RosAsm is also nice, but Win32-only.

it can produce a 1024 byte working window which is the PE specification minimum size for a PE file

I'm pretty sure it can get much smaller than that...

>>7
Oh RosAsm, the ReactOS Assembler, right until ReactOS told him to stop using their name. Whatever happened to that French guy? Last I saw he was throwing a fit on Usenet and then all his stuff was gone.

I'm pretty sure it can get much smaller than that...

With a strict interpretation of the PE format, anything smaller is malformed. Of course, Windows will load them anyway, but Microsoft could put a stop to that at any time.

>>7
gas with the .intel_syntax directive in force is not so bad. In fact most of the code that is built from an assembly source on your typical Linux system uses gas - not because it is the best assembler but because it is the most widely installed.