(They both suck, by the way. Just in different ways.)
It's like using an Intel compiler that's bundled with a ntel syntax assembler and then coding your assembly in using gas. This is just more work.
Why not just use an assembler that uses Intel syntax? Because you like extra percent signs, a different order of operands, etc.? These are small differences.
What do you achieve by using an Intel syntax assembler? A few small sytanctical differences? Some small differences in macro facilities? Assembly language does not have heaps of abstraction. That's the whole point of using it. A machine instruction has only one form. It's a number.
So why do we need multiple assembly language syntaxes?
Maybe some people just like extra work. Let's write a new language just for fun. Let's change some syntax just for fun. Let's fix something that's not broken, just for fun, ignoring all the things have remained broken and unfixed year after year.
There are here for historical reasons, I suppose. Nobody wants to have two assembly syntaxes, but now that we have them, everyone wants his syntax of choice to be the only one.
I learned assembly 10 years ago with the Intel syntax (actually, I wasn't even aware that there was another syntax until recently), and I really dislike the AT&T syntax. So what do I do now? Learn another syntax, or just fight against it?
So, there's no way to get rid of one syntax in favor of the other... The perfect solution would be to have a tool to translate automatically from one to the other.
Should be possible, what do you think?
With macros, it would be completely impractical to do in the general case, considering the disparity between the macro systems of different assemblers (gas with the C preprocessor, nasm, etc. with their own macro systems).
