Talk:Assembler

Untitled

everyone who want to become a computer engineer or programmer should learn assembler before JAVA or VB! Yum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.18.198.106 (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Images assemblers exist too. They are used to put together two ore more images (like photographs), yielding a flat result or a spherical result. Spherical (or to a less extent cylindrical) results can be viewed using an appropriated viewer like Apple QuickTime or Helmut Dersch's PTviewer. To see some fine examples, you should go to www.panoramas.dk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.122.135.18 (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2004 (UTC)[reply]

as , the unix command line assembler

shouldnt this assembler be included ? im not an expert and i never used as , but it is written i wikipedia in the disambiguation page of as! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.213.33.85 (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2005 (UTC)[reply]

noting which assemblers are FS/OSS

In the list of popular assemblers I've split them into those that are proprietary software and those that are free software / open-source software. In the previous layout, some assemblers had "open source" after them and some didn't, which left it ambiguous about whether those that didn't were "open source" or not (or unknown, or the contributor didn't think to note it). There was also another ambiguity in that one assembler was marked "public domain", but that doesn't say much since if the source code is not available then it's proprietary freeware, but if the source code is available, and is also public domain, then it is indeed free software / open-source software. --Gronky 22:10, November 14, 2005

I don't see why it's necessary to even mention whether or not an assembler is FOSS in this article. It looks biased. I'm going to re-merge the lists and remove all text except the program's name. --Aurochs

I don't think this is an optimal outcome, but it's better than the confusion of the original. Gronky 22:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Assembly Language

I vote : yes KymFarnik 06:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep separate. It would be like merging Compiler with C programming language (which, I hope anybody would agree upon, would be absurd): an assembler is distinct from the language it compiles (assembles), which on its turn may or may not deserve its own Wikipedia article. So, why do we have Assembly language at all? Well, I guess for the same reasons that we have Compiled language and Interpreted language, as well as High level language and so on. LjL 00:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]