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: Georg Bauhaus on 8 Jun 2010 03:13 On 6/8/10 8:27 AM, James J. Weinkam wrote: > Nevertheless, it remains true that the assembly language programmer who > knows what he is about has complete control over the binary code > generated, although I would venture to say that few, if any, assembly > language programmers think of what they are doing in those terms most of > the time. Would this control include control over pipelines, parallelism, and possibly translation of assembly instructions to microcode?
From: Shmuel Metz on 7 Jun 2010 21:22 In <huis7i12bi(a)news7.newsguy.com>, on 06/07/2010 at 09:29 AM, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> said: >Has most of the properties of a fixed-head disk Google for FastRand. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap(a)library.lspace.org
From: Shmuel Metz on 7 Jun 2010 21:18 In <huiia5$2k1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, on 06/07/2010 at 06:40 AM, Peter Flass <Peter_Flass(a)Yahoo.com> said: >If you want to talk *really* old assemblers, look at SOAP. The >hardware had no core, Ours did. But only 60 words. >and each H/W instruction contained the >drum address of the next instruction to be executed. The next instruction did not have to be on the drum. It could be, e.g., in core, in the Upper Accumulator. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap(a)library.lspace.org
From: Shmuel Metz on 7 Jun 2010 21:16 In <huii3u$u9$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, on 06/07/2010 at 06:36 AM, Peter Flass <Peter_Flass(a)Yahoo.com> said: >Of course that's effectively two programs - a macro processor and an >assembler. No way, Jos�! There may be assemblers where the macro processing is a separate phase, but in the assembler that I use these days it's integrated, e.g., a macroinstruction can test the length attribute of a symbol. >The PL/I preprocessor Is a separate issue. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap(a)library.lspace.org
From: Shmuel Metz on 7 Jun 2010 05:39
In <hugkq9$u0t$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, on 06/06/2010 at 05:10 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt <gah(a)ugcs.caltech.edu> said: >Unless you are actually doing it. There are stories from the early >days of S/360 about patching object decks by adding cards. And before. It made maintenance a nightmare. Assembler was far easier, even if the assembler was slow. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap(a)library.lspace.org |