Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use
in [ADA]
|
Prev: Request for parallel computing books in comp.parallel
Next: Press Release - Reliable Software Technologies, Ada-Europe 2010
From: Martin Krischik on 7 Jun 2010 02:02 Am 06.06.2010, 21:12 Uhr, schrieb J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net>: > On 6/6/2010 1:15 PM, Martin Krischik wrote: >> Am 06.06.2010, 17:19 Uhr, schrieb J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net>: >> >>> On 6/6/2010 12:25 AM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote: >> >>> What do you believe to be the difference between machine code and >>> assembler? >> >> 6502 Assembler: >> >> LDA #10 >> >> 6502 Machine code: >> >> A9 10 >> >> Any more silly questions? > > Does LDA #10 assemble to any _other_ code than A9 10? No. > Is there any _other_ code that assembles to A9 10? Yes: .BYTE $A9, $10 or: Ten: .EQ $10 LDA #Ten Did you all forget that assemblers support symbolic names, various pseudo codes and sometimes macros? That was the really useful part. Martin -- Martin Krischik mailto://krischik(a)users.sourceforge.net https://sourceforge.net/users/krischik
From: robin on 7 Jun 2010 02:15 "Martin Krischik" <krischik(a)users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message news:op.vdv17504z25lew(a)macpro-eth1.krischik.com... | Am 06.06.2010, 17:19 Uhr, schrieb J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net>: | | > On 6/6/2010 12:25 AM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote: | | > What do you believe to be the difference between machine code and | > assembler? | | 6502 Assembler: | | LDA #10 | | 6502 Machine code: | | A9 10 | | Any more silly questions? That assembler was of a much later period than the one under discussion, namely, the 1940s-1950s.
From: robin on 7 Jun 2010 05:38 "Simon Wright" <simon(a)pushface.org> wrote in message news:m2k4qc3y0r.fsf(a)pushface.org... | "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> writes: | | > What do you believe to be the difference between machine code and assembler? | | Perhaps he means they look different :-) | | Ferranti's Fixed-Point AutoCode: v1 = v2 + v3 | Binary: 000 01 0 000 00001 00010 00011 | Spoken as: 0110 1 2 3 Pegasus Autocode was not developed until 1956-57. Pegasus Mark I Autocode was available from mid-1954. (Lavington, The Pegasus Story, 2000, p. 35). Anyway, the point I was making was that the programs were run before the March 1953 Symposium, and that the programs preceded FORTRAN, and preceded ALGOL.
From: Peter Flass on 7 Jun 2010 06:36 Martin Krischik wrote: > Am 07.06.2010, 02:18 Uhr, schrieb J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net>: > >> On 6/6/2010 7:01 PM, Gib Bogle wrote: >>> Martin Krischik wrote: >>>> Am 06.06.2010, 17:19 Uhr, schrieb J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net>: >>>> >>>>> On 6/6/2010 12:25 AM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote: >>>> >>>>> What do you believe to be the difference between machine code and >>>>> assembler? >>>> >>>> 6502 Assembler: >>>> >>>> LDA #10 >>>> >>>> 6502 Machine code: >>>> >>>> A9 10 >>>> >>>> Any more silly questions? >>> >>> Yes. What relevance does this have for Fortran? >> >> None at all, but it's fun to torment the "I program in machine code >> because it gives me more control than assembler" crowd. > > Maybe the talk about one of those advanced *macro* assemblers ;-). Now > that is a different story. > Of course that's effectively two programs - a macro processor and an assembler. The PL/I preprocessor isn't tied to the language and can be used as a general-purpose macro processor.
From: Peter Flass on 7 Jun 2010 06:40
robin wrote: > "Martin Krischik" <krischik(a)users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message news:op.vdv17504z25lew(a)macpro-eth1.krischik.com... > | Am 06.06.2010, 17:19 Uhr, schrieb J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net>: > | > | > On 6/6/2010 12:25 AM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote: > | > | > What do you believe to be the difference between machine code and > | > assembler? > | > | 6502 Assembler: > | > | LDA #10 > | > | 6502 Machine code: > | > | A9 10 > | > | Any more silly questions? > > That assembler was of a much later period than the one under discussion, > namely, the 1940s-1950s. > > If you want to talk *really* old assemblers, look at SOAP. The hardware had no core, only drum memory, and each H/W instruction contained the drum address of the next instruction to be executed. A big function of the assembler was figuring out where to store the instructions on the drum so that the next instruction was under the R/W head just as the previous finished executing -- based on the instruction timings. Try doing that by hand for a large program! |