Comparison of assemblers - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_assemblers

I remember during the DOS era TASM was all the rage; it was wicked fast. Unfortunately didn't get an opportunity to do much assembly programming after moving to Windows/Unix.

When Randall Hyde published his HLA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Level_Assembly) i remember thinking it was a good idea since it allowed many high-level language programmers to easily learn assembly programming as it included all the well-known higher-level programming constructs. It was a proper new language, but the assembly purists were all outraged and Hyde caught a lot of flak which i think was unjustified.

I prefer FASM but NASM is a strong second choice. But at the end of the day it really doesn't matter.. purely preference.

fasm absolutely rules on windows

Since NASM/YASM is written in C, it's more portable. On my ARM Mac, NASM works fine.

FASM is cool (and still being development), but since it's written in 32-bit x86 asm, let's just say macOS is a 2nd class citizen.

Because the Intel syntax is limited, and pretty broken by binutils. I had to change my C compiler rcc to emit AT&T GAS, instead of Intel syntax, even if Intel syntax looks easier on the eye.

GNU Assembler (GAS) ≥2.45 on x86-64: call and jmp to global labels in Intel syntax cause operand type mismatch errors. RCC emits .intel_syntax noprefix by default, but GAS ≥2.45 rejects direct branches to global symbols in this mode. Local labels (.L.xxx) work fine. Tests with user-defined function calls (bitops-1, fprintf-1, etc.) may fail to assemble under these versions. Root cause: rcc emits lea r11, [rip + sI] but GAS requires AT&T sI(%rip) for globals.