| > It's easy enough to learn "base + index*scale +- displacement". Well, you already know this requirement, so it is not a problem for you. However for learners, who don't have even the remotest idea of machine instructions, all they get is some invalid expression error messages. Same message for all (1) (2) and (3) cases I listed above. Maybe Intel syntax works better for experienced programmers. But at least for me, when I was a newbie to assembly, AT&T was better than Intel syntax. It made learning process easier. > AT&T syntax forces you to learn this before writing or even reading a single line of code that references memory I do believe that rules forced by language is a good thing. At least it helped me understand why (1) (2) and (3) didn't work Many people believe Rust can help people write safer code. Why? Because of its rules. Incorrect ownership will be discovered by the borrow checker so a compilation error will force the programmer to correct it. Maybe an experienced C++ programmer will be able to handle memory management correctly in C++, and loves the extra freedom that C++ brings. But Rust can be helpful for learners. It provides clear error message helping them understand why their code is wrong. While in C++? Segmentation fault. (Needless to say, Rust also helps experienced programmers. Even experienced programmers write buggy C++ code.) |