DrRacket

>that feel when I have to use DrRacket for my first Computer Science course.

WHY?

>>39
So,
ral/rab raw rad ra/raq/rax
...
rdil/rdib rdiw rdid rdi/rdiq
...
r8l/r8b r8w r8d r8/r8q
...
?
I don't know, I'm all for a more consistent naming, but then why don't we just start from r1[lbwdq]?
rax = r0, rcx = r1, rdx = r2, rbx = r3, rsp = r4, rbp = r5, rsi = r6, rdi = r7, r8, ..., r15
Or, just rename rn to rn-k for k = 7 or 8, and rename al/ax/eax to ral/raw/rad etc.

>>41
It's possible, but remember that some registers are special.

>>42
Then the latter renaming should do no harm (r8 -> r1, etc).

Bump over shit threads.

>>41
So you want to break backward compatibility for an inane naming scheme which basically tells you nothing about the registers you're using? How could you possibly defend that? People know what rax is, people know what eax, ax, al and ah is as well, they know what rsi and rsp is used for, why would change that to some retarded shit like r[1-8]?

Tell me, do you consider yourself a competent programmer?

>>44
I broke backwards compatibility the exact moment I choose to use neither Intel nor AT&T syntax, and backwards compatibility is the root of all evil anyway.
You also can't use the ah, bh, ch, dh registers in 64-bit mode, and I hate the r[8..15] registers' name, since there are no logical r[0..7] registers.

Today, the x86 registers are all general purpose, only some old opcodes treat them specially, which is why renaming rax to r0 would be stupid, but renaming r[8..15] would make no harm whatsoever.

>>44 No need to get angry, it's fucking nothing.
>>41 You should hear 44-san.
These “inconsistent” letters indicate something about the registers, which is useful on CISC architectures (like x86), where some instructions don't treat them as general registers.
See http://www.eecg.toronto.edu/~amza/www.mindsec.com/files/x86regs.html

>>46
But I know, I've read my intel manuals (>>45). It's the new r[8..15] registers that bother me.