Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use
in [Fortran]
|
From: J. Clarke on 6 Jun 2010 13:51 On 6/6/2010 12:51 PM, Simon Wright wrote: > "J. Clarke"<jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> writes: > >> On 6/6/2010 12:25 AM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote: >>> In<4c0a2e36$0$34205$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 06/05/2010 >>> at 08:58 PM, Dave Frank<robin51(a)dodo.com.au> said: >>> >>>> Of course, the programs were in machine code. >>> >>> Your saying "of course" does not make it true, or even plausible. You >>> keep refusing to actually provide evidence, or even independent >>> claims. The last time you cited something that you claimed to have >>> been written in machine language it turned out to have been written in >>> assembler. >> >> 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 > > Clearly not the same at all!!! Yeah. On a 360 that would be two steps (there isn't an instruction to add two registers and put the result in a third): LR 1,2 AR 1,3 Binary 00011000 0001 0010 00011010 0001 0011
From: Non scrivetemi on 6 Jun 2010 14:33 Arthur Evans Jr <nospam(a)someISP.net> wrote: > In article <4c0b234f$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice(a)news.patriot.net>, > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap(a)library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote: > > > The last time you cited something that you claimed to have > > been written in machine language it turned out to have been written in > > assembler. > > As one who was writing programs in 1957, I can assure you that the two > terms were then used interchangeably. > > Art Evans > Old Codger I don't know what happened up to that point, but I can assure you that the two terms were not used interchangably after 1957. Assembler is *not* machine language.
From: J. Clarke on 6 Jun 2010 15:12 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? Is there any _other_ code that assembles to A9 10? If the answer to both is "no" then in what significant way are they different?
From: J. Clarke on 6 Jun 2010 15:17 On 6/6/2010 1:10 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: > In comp.lang.fortran Arthur Evans Jr<nospam(a)someisp.net> wrote: >> In article<4c0b234f$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice(a)news.patriot.net>, >> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz<spamtrap(a)library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote: > >>> The last time you cited something that you claimed to have >>> been written in machine language it turned out to have been >>> written in assembler. > >> As one who was writing programs in 1957, I can assure you that the two >> terms were then used interchangeably. > > Unless you are actually doing it. There are stories from the early > days of S/360 about patching object decks by adding cards. > As each card has a starting address and length, you could easily > patch a few bytes by punching a new card with the appropriate > bytes and adding it later in the object deck. In that case, > one might actually try to keep the distinction. > > Otherwise, I agree. The main distinction for me was that dumps don't come out in assembler. But I never thought of machine code and assembler being distinct as a result--just two ways to write the same thing.
From: John B. Matthews on 6 Jun 2010 16:39
In article <hugt0702ccl(a)news2.newsguy.com>, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > 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? Yes, but it depends on the assembler: I have two that generate A9 10, and the rest produce A9 0A. > Is there any _other_ code that assembles to A9 10? Yes, but they (trivially) involve a macro, expression or radix. > If the answer to both is "no" then in what significant way are > they different? -- John B. Matthews trashgod at gmail dot com <http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews> |