Fuck AT&T syntax for x86 assembly.
That is all.

imagine src,dest syntax in assembly

this post was made by dest,src gang

Much better than the stupid Intel syntax.

I have to read it, Assembly in Intel syntax, now, it is a pain. The move command makes no sense this way.

mov a, b

My brain thinks move a to b, because it is written this way. If Intel would had at least named it set.

set a, b

I would read set register a to the value of register b, which would make more sense. And yes, the mov command makes about 50% of instructions in this code, so it really annoys me. And i have to read this code for several weeks now.

@happygimp0 sounds like you're just used to AT&T ordering. I read it as "move to dest the source" (also happens to be consistent with MIPS/RISC-V). There are other reasons why I find it clunky, including all the pointless %s, the need to redundantly mention both the size of the op and the registers (when size can be inferred from the registers), the explicit immediates, and the nasty syntax for memory addressing. AT&T syntax feels like it was invented before basic parsing was a thing (which it probably was).

At the end of the day they both get the job done so eh. I'm also happy to not be working with x86 assembly any more, most of our control logic is RISC-V now so it's way more pleasant.