From: dave@powerbasic.com (Dave Navarro)
Subject: Re: 3D game engine for PB?
 
In article , R.Zwitserloot@BTInternet.com
says...
> Surely, SteveBasic! PB inline assembler syntax is indeed 'intel' type,
> like MASM, with the minor syntactical difference of Using &h prefix
> instead of the h suffix for hexadecimal, which is actually a lot easier
> (don't have to worry about using a prefix zero!). I'm writing about a
> bug, not syntax implementation. (That is, PB's internal linker has
> problems with some standard OBJ files). This standard has been defined
> by Microsoft, btw. Simple concern for one of my favorite dos tools! I'd
> hate to see a  bug in it, though under most circumstances you won't
> notice it's there.
 
You seem to continuously miss the point, so let me try to explain it one more
time as "simply" as I can.
 
As time goes on specifications change and get better.
 
NASM conforms to *OLD* specifications which are outdated and have since been
replaced.
 
PowerBASIC supports the "latest" standards which are also supported by MASM
and TASM which are "the most popular Intel assembler products".
 
Given that PowerBASIC supports the "modern standard" and NASM supports "an 
ld
outdated standard" do you really think that PowerBASIC should change or that
NASM should change?
 
Personally, I'm tired of this whole conversation.  It simply comes down to
this.  PowerBASIC works with today's standard and until NASM came along
supporting an old standard, PowerBASIC worked with every Intel assembler
product (MASM, TASM, OPTASM, IASM, etc.).  The fault for this incompatibility
is **100 percent** with NASM.  Period.  If you have a problem with it, take 
t
up with the author/publisher of NASM.
 
Your complaints about PowerBASIC on this issue are totally without merit and
border-line slanderous.  You may want to consider that before you continue
this thread.
 
--Dave
 
*** QwkNews (tm) v2.1
 * [TN71] alt.lang.powerbasic  POWER_BAS Gateway
--- GEcho 1.20/Pro
---------------