[mitchi]

This is the GNU assembler AT&T syntax though, which is known to be horrendous. Other assemblers have much nicer syntax.

[userbinator]

Agreed; most programmers I know who write a lot of x86 Asm tend to stick with the Intel syntax. I've never found the "it's easier to parse" argument for AT&T syntax particularly convincing, especially as GAS is written in C while some of the Intel syntax assemblers existing at the time were themselves written in x86 Asm. Neither is the "it makes it more consistent with the other arch's assemblers" - just look at GAS' syntax for MIPS and ARM. It seems to me like someone was really obsessed with the SPARC syntax (which I find roughly as horrendous.)

http://x86asm.net/articles/what-i-dislike-about-gas/

[Narishma]

I don't think either syntax is nicer than the other. It's just a matter personal preference and familiarity.

[cbd1984]

Intel syntax has more intuitive memory access syntax:

AT&T syntax:

    movl mem_location(%ebx,%ecx,4), %eax

Intel syntax:

    mov eax, [ebx + ecx*4 + mem_location]

The other differences are minor compared to that, IMHO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_assembly_language#Syntax