Akwardly, i agree on the facts but the sentence doesn't feel right. Would you agree with this rephrasing: asm is simple in terms of number of abstract concepts needed to define its syntax and semantics (and as far as i know this is good since it's intended as a mother-of-all lingua franca), but of course every language out there is turing complete (and has some mechanism for syscalls); so in the end the only way to build haskell-like abstractions in asm is actually to code up GHC and then code in haskell. Which i wouldn't call at all programming in asm (just like i'm not commuting circuits by typing on this keyboard). Nor do i think this is actually what asm is used for (when written by humans). My guess is that asm is used for programming close to the metal--crucial parts of firmwares, drivers--in situations with simple logic and in which abstraction would actually get in your way (who care about types or functions when you just need to write some values into some memory location).