Hacker News Reader

Comment by titzer | Hacker News Reader

The perennial problem for me is the bifurcation from "AT&T" and "Intel" syntax. I don't really care if register names have a $, a %, or no prefix at all. It's the reversal of source and destination operands that is absolutely maddening.

Personally I prefer that destination operands are on the left, because that tracks with assignments in normal programming languages. I don't really understand why you would want the opposite.

View on HN

It becomes more natural/C-like if you think of

    ADD foo bar

not as

    foo + bar

but as

    foo += bar

And then apply a prefix syntax correction, to end up with

    += foo bar

(Or, equivalently, always mentally add the word "TO" to each operator that modifies an argument, which is most)

Also, most intel instructions use one or two arguments as input, and modify one of them as output. It sort of makes sense to have the output (or input/output) argument always be in the same position, regardless of whether an instruction takes 1 or 2 args. BTW, even in riscv where "add" takes three args, i.e. the form is a = b + c, the output-only argument a comes first.

> foo += bar

Yeah, this is how I think about it too. It's natural to have the destination operand always as the first one (i.e. left hand side). I think the GNU tools all use the AT&T syntax (destination is last), and I hate it.

AT&T simply adapted the assembly syntax of earlier machines, ultimately which reflected the architectures of even earlier hardware from a time when there weren't really higher level languages.

Some bizarre high level conventions, like using '=' for assignment, were also adopted from earlier languages but are now commonplace.

"MOV A, B" reads more naturally as "move A to B".

I agree that we should just pick a convention!

COBOL has MOVE ... TO ... which seems to be the logical order for a command named MOV/MOVE.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com