Talk:Microassembler

Terminology: microassembler vs. meta-assembler
I'm not sure I agree with the article's implication that "microassembler" and "meta-assembler" are synonymous. For instance, I don't think a microassembler which targets only a single hardware platform (e.g., Xerox Alto) can really be considered to be a meta-assembler. On the other hand, meta-assemblers such as AMDASM have no inherent knowledge of the target hardware, and force the user to supply a definition file. AMDASM and the like were primarily used for microcode, but could also be used for other purposes not involving microcode. --Brouhaha 07:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This was also my understanding, but to be sure I googled it: "meta-assembler A program that accepts the syntactic and semantic description of an assembly language, and generates an assembler for that language." (among other similar descriptions).  Therefore I deleted the phrase equating "microassembler" and "meta assembler."   See "Meta Symbol" assembler for XDS systems.Peter Flass (talk) 13:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Assemblers category
A microassembler does not serve the same purpose as an assembler. Someone interested in one does not care about the other. It should not be in the "Assemblers" category. Dgpop (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)