Talk:Michael Abrash

Untitled
Both the sources for the Black Book seem to have gone - does anyone know of another? Lovingboth (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The examples "XOR %EAX, %EAX" and "MOVL $0, %EAX" seem weird. For an 80x86 assembly program, one would write "XOR EAX, EAX" and "MOV EAX, 0".Doubledork (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC) i agree AT&T syntax is far less used then the Intel syntax ... i will change the syntax to the dominant one. (141.52.232.84 (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC))

Michael Abrash is not a technical writer, he is a very talented and well regarded programmer who has also written books and articles. Calling him a technical writer is like calling Bill Clinton a political writer, Warren Buffett a financial writer, or Richard Feynman a science writer because they wrote books. The wiki page for technical writer correctly describes the common meaning of that term, which is not used to describe professional programmers. Joebob2k6 (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Age
Some sources say that he is 59 in 2016. It seems he was born in 1957 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C428:1E70:4167:D16F:72A6:CD7D (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * He has stated that his birthday is March 31, 1957. Here is the source: https://www.drdobbs.com/windows/some-things-ive-learned-about-win32-game/184410376 173.161.128.169 (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In that source he writes, "I turned 40 yesterday," and the posting date is Apri l, 1997. I think that makes 1957 a reasonable birth year, but did he actually write that long post and the code examples on April 1? It may have been written earlier, so it doesn't definitively lock down the month/day. Dgpop (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

hi wiki contributors source 8 is outdated
source 8 current working link is https://www.mcvuk.com/development/valve-hires-worldclass-development-trio

hth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.58.37 (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic tone/style
Two issues are currently noted at the top of this article:
 * This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (May 2020)
 * This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. (May 2020)

I don't see this problem myself; has it been resolved and should these tags be removed? Or, if the problem remains, can someone point it out? I'm happy to make changes to fix, I just cant tell what the issues are. Tangledyarn (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)