I think you are missing the point of what assembly is. Just short concise commands that make up a program. No OOP horseshit, just simple 1,2,3.

Or perhaps this is really shitty bait, in which case come on OP. You can do better

>>50794566
perfect pic OP

>>50794566
truly intredasting

>>50794566
make a cpp project
compile to assembly object files
-> object oriented assembly
whew that was hard

Sure, you can pretend that assembly is object oriented. It'd be up to you to enforce your own rules for that, though. The assembler isn't going to help you out.

Really though can't u say all oop implementations are ultimately assembly?

>>50797149
No. Most languages compile straight to machine code.

>>50797281
Which assembly is just cute names for each opcode so it's the same. Makes u think...

>>50797303
No, most assembly languages aren't 1-to-1 conversion to machine code. ARM and x86 assembly especially.

>>50794566
Maybe

Can the machine understand the objects or is it just translated into more basic instructions?

>>50794566
Ofcourse.

>>50797281
No language does that.

like teaching a horse to add numbers

>>50797303
A bit more than that. They allow symbols / labels for branching, subroutines, etc. They generally allow macros. They also allow other evaluations prior to assembly.

Why wouldn't it be possible? Just design a architecture with OO concepts. The Assembly language would follow

HLA? Not really pure assembly more of a pet language made as a teaching tool that has a ton of extra junk added in for convenience.