[recoil]

The article uses Nasm not GCC (or rather, not Gas - though Gas supports Intel syntax too now, afaik), and is definitely using Intel syntax. Note for instance the unintuitive order of source and destination in the MOV calls and the lack of delimiters on the operands, amongst other things.

[edit: clarification]

[barrkel]

I strongly object to your characterization; it's highly dependent on what you're familiar with. MOV calls map intuitively to assignment, and with assignment, the LHS is the destination and the RHS is the value. And Intel syntax uses type inference to deduce the width of operands, and only requires DWORD PTR / WORD PTR / BYTE PTR etc. to disambiguate when it's necessary.

(I have a very strong personal preference for the Intel syntax.)

[recoil]

I prefer Intel syntax too, in every other respect other than order of operands. That's really just because it differs from the only other assembly language I've ever used (68k). I still think it's unintuitive, but it's no worse than, say, the order of arguments to the Unix 'ln' command. You get used to it.

The comment about the lack of delimiters was not a value judgement; I was just pointing out one of the obvious signs that the article wasn't using AT&T syntax. I think that having to stick $ on immediate operands is particularly annoying, for instance.

[mgedmin]

And the trick to getting used to things is finding the right mnemonic.

I used to get tripped up by 'ln -s' all the time, until I realized that if I thought about 'cp src dst' but with 'cp' replaced 'cp' with 'ln -s' it suddenly made sense.

Likewise Intel assembly's mov statement and its similarity with assignment statements that barrkel mentioned.

Whether something seems intuitive or not depends on the analogy you prefer, or even your choice of words. E.g. look at 2D coordinates for a terminal character cell: if you think of them in terms of (x, y), you will find that order intuitive, but if you think (row, col), you'll find the opposite order intuitive.