Hi,
On Thu, May 2, 2019, 7:32 AM ZB wrote:
>
> Well my "host platform" obviously is 16 bit - since it's FreeDOS.
>
> But yes, I was indeed somewhat amazed at "mammoth size" of NASM binary,
> compared, as example, to modest 33 KB of A86.COM.
>
A86 is well-written, of course, but there are
On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 10:16:52AM -0400, dmccunney wrote:
> No, I simply think the point in the article was wrong, based on
> experience with the platform,
>
> Your mileage obviously varies.
I was using Commodore 64 (then C-128) since May (or June) 1985 - and I don't
share your feelings.
For
No, I simply think the point in the article was wrong, based on
experience with the platform,
Your mileage obviously varies.
__
Dennis
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 9:57 AM ZB wrote:
>
> Everything you've written in your post is *totally* missing the point
> presented in the article I gave link
Everything you've written in your post is *totally* missing the point
presented in the article I gave link to.
It's just your private impression "how it was using C-64 IMHO" - thanks for
sharing
--
regards,
Zbigniew
___
Freedos-user mailing list
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 8:32 AM ZB wrote:
> On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 09:05:35PM -0500, Rugxulo wrote:
> > N.B. The 8088 [sic] turns 40 this year. That's the one the original IBM PC
> > used.
>
> The one "slower than Commodore 64" ;)
>
> https://trixter.oldskool.org/2011/06/04/at-a-disadvantage/
>
On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 09:05:35PM -0500, Rugxulo wrote:
> We're talking about the host platform, not the target. Yes, you can still
> assemble with NASM (or YASM or FASM) for 8086 target, but none of those
> assemblers themselves can (easily) be rebuilt to run hosted on 16-bit
> machines
