Not sure about their rationale, but here is a Visual C++ team blog entry about it:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2007/10/18/new-intrinsic-support-in-visual-studio-2008.aspx "Walter Bright" <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:i9a2t3$26p...@digitalmars.com... > Paulo Pinto wrote: >> Still most modern languages are moving away from inline assembly. > > It's a pain to write an inline assembler and figure out how to integrate > it in with the rest of the compiler. I can see why compiler writers don't > want to do it, and look for reasons not to. > > Most modern languages do not even generate code - they target the JVM or > CLI. > > >> Even Microsoft has dropped inline assembly support for the 64bit version >> of Visual C++, pointing >> developers to MASM. > > I'd be curious as to their rationale. > > >> People will always complain no matter what. Just use the official >> assembler for the target platform. > > Microsoft MASM has about 30 different incarnations, all accepting > different syntax. > > It's a *constant* source of grief for customer support. > > >> Personally the last time I used inline assembly I was still target >> MS-DOS, long time ago and actually >> it is one of the features I don't like in D. > > I'd be forced to write a standalone assembler if D didn't have inline > assembler. > > In any case, inline assembler in D is a substantial productivity booster > for me for anything that needs assembler. The inline assembler is also > quite ignorable, if you don't like it.