• bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> Aug 20 2010
• Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> Aug 20 2010

bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

Adam Ruppe:

The whole point of writing assembly language is to see and write exactly what
the computer sees and executes.<


HLA allows you to have a 1:1 mapping, if you want.
You can find answers here:
http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/AsmTools/HLA/HLADoc/HTMLDoc/hlafaq.txt
Look especially at the answer to questions 6 and 23.

Bye,
bearophile

Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:

bearophile wrote:
 HLA allows you to have a 1:1 mapping, if you want.
 You can find answers here:
 http://webster.cs.ucr.edu/AsmTools/HLA/HLADoc/HTMLDoc/hlafaq.txt
 Look especially at the answer to questions 6 and 23.



I found this amusing:

===============================================
6:  q.  Why is HLA necessary?  What's wrong with MASM,
         TASM, GAS, or NASM?  Do we really need another
         incompatible assembler out there?
     a.  HLA was written with two purposes in mind: The
         first was to provide a tool that makes it very
         easy (or, at least, easier) to teach assembly
         language programming to University students.
         Experiences at UCR bear out the success of
         HLA's design (even with prototype/alpha code
         with tons of bugs and little documentation,
         students are producing better projects than
         past courses that used MASM).
===============================================

because they weren't teaching assembler, they were teaching their pascal-like 
embedded language. Of course that's easier than assembler, but it isn't
assembler.