One significant problem has arisen from all this time working on AT&T emulation: I am now totally used to AT&T assembly syntax, and Intel assembly syntax looks weird to me.
I mean yes, why SHOULDN’T the source come before the destination?
I very much prefer the AT&T syntax. I have no idea why it gets so much flak. It's much easier to read!
I think I had figured it out WHY it is this way and WHY it's everywhere (AT/T ASM, libc ...)
I guess It had to do something with C lang. and functions that take a portion of source; like strcpy() or a hash function that stores resulting hash in a string/array supplied by caller. You can look at the function and see three last supplied arguments (src, i, j) and whisper to yourself that it means &src[i] to &src[j].
Up until now it seemed natural to me but now I just forgot why it seemed so.
@twylo PDP-11, 68000, and SPARC agree with you. To mention a few.
"I appreciate SDF but it's a general-purpose server and the name doesn't make it obvious that it's about art." - Eugen Rochko