Okay. Seriously.

[Revfan9]

<rant>

Why am I the only person that uses Zasm? Am I the only one that takes out the time to learn it?

Come on now, I can't be the only person out of a community of thousands of people that preffers low-level styled programming, can I?

Can I really be the only person who ever looks at this board? Maybe that's why it's so dead? Why my help topics always go unanswered?

*sigh*

</rant>

[Fire Wizzrobe]

I think I was like the third person to try and learn it.

Granted you can do things in ZASM in 5 lines that take 16 lines in Z-Script, but I do most of my work with structured programming became it's easier to put my thoughts into.

[MottZilla]

I didn't even know they'd implemented such a thing. I recently have been playing Zelda on my real NES and that's gotten me looking at ZC again. However I have to say I'm very annoyed by the lack of any stable base still. That's part of why I threw in the towl for ZC. Development is nice but when you have no stable base for the end user it's not fun.

[DarkDragon]

I think I was like the third person to try and learn it.

Granted you can do things in ZASM in 5 lines that take 16 lines in Z-Script

Like in the greater context of PC programming, ASM will always be more efficient than a compiled language (given that the programmer is sufficiently skilled), but for anything above extremely simple programs, the structure provided by higher-level languages far more than outweigh the efficiency lost. On PCs these days assembly is only used for game graphics where performance is most critical, and even so raw assembly has pretty much been supplanted by low-level languages such as C in the form of graphics libraries such as OpenGL.

As the maintainer of ZScript I'd like nothing better than to have ZScript be strictly better than ZASM, but I understand that for small, optimized programs, ZScript will never be able to compete with the conciseness of pure assembly.

[Hot Water Music]

I already have trouble on NES ASM.

Now Zelda Assembly?