Yes, assembly is beautiful. But there are some assembly dialects that are very nice, and some not so much.
That's a matter of taste. I never seen a good argument for syntax choices, and that is the reason.
All syntax are symbols. Labels. Only that. So what you chose are less important, since there are as many tastes as there are coders. And when you get used to one, you will understand it and then it will make sense.
By then, you will think it is a good one. So saying that one is better, than any other is a fallacy. You may say that the one that is prefered by most coders, is the best, cause then we can read each others code more easily. Like in a team or something. But it is "good" then, only because of habit.
C++ has awful syntax, according to my tastes. It even is more than a question of taste, because its syntax is 3 times as verbose as assembly. With 10 times as many complicating components. That in addition, comes from logical problems with the language itself, and not from logic. But it seems many people still love it, or at the very least: like it well enough to stick to it.
Of course it is possible to make this bug in assembly. Why do you think it isn't? If compiler can produce buggy asm code, so can human. If anything, then compilers could produce significantly less buggy code than human in general (because it could automatically verify result). Whether they do that, that's a different question.
Fair enough. But the reason I say it, like that, is that this is a bug comming from not understanding how the x87 works. And that is not possible in asm. Of course, all people could make a bug. But when an asmer made this bug, would be because he was a beginner, or made a typo.
I commented because it seemed to me, like "Pseudonym73" was trying to blame the x87 for a C implementation bug. This isn't a problem with x87 or logic (assembly) but with not knowing what you are doing.