Re: on our resident dorks.....
On 31 Jan 2006 10:35:21 -0800, "Auroran Sunset"
<goliethslayer@xxxxxxx>
mysteriously appeared thru the usenet mist to inform us thus...
>hummingbird wrote:
>> >> Not true. I predicted that quite soon you would call in 'the auroran
>> >> sunset' to dig you out of your technical blustering ...and sure enough
>> >> ...he's turned up to join you in making a fool of himself!
>> >>
>> >> Considering he (like you) doesn't understand the difference between
>> >> binary and assembler ...you really should be thinking about getting
>> >> someone better to provide support for your fruit salad website. I
>> >> suppose at least he's never claimed publicly to be able to write
>> >> 'programs in machine level language' like you have ...ho ho ho.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Hold on, I do know the difference:
>> >
>> >Assembler is a low-level programming language that is closest to
>> >machine language, while machine language is the direct 'instruction
>> >set' placed into hardware (or firmware) using 'binary' as its essential
>> >human programming interface.
>>
>> Excellant!!! You win first prize!!!!!! I have few quibbles with your
>> definitions. Lardy will get a consolation prize for being a dork.
>>
>> This of course shows lardy up for being a blusterer because a) he
>> claimed a while back that he can program in 'machine level language'
>> (which by definition is binary) and b) he apparently doesn't even
>> know what assembler is!!! The auroran sunset in Japan apparently
>> doesn't know either.
>>
>> >I think that about says it, no?
>>
>> Indeed it does.
>>
>
>Hummingbird, I left out some of the finer details for the sake of
>brevity, and for some folks with apparent short attention spans. But
>according to 'PC Magazine' they say it the way I understood it -- with
>a bit more factual detail.
>
>? To whomever it may offend please (or kindly) forgive my proclivity
>to "cut and paste" it is a hazard of the profession I've chosen.
>
>So then for the sake of clarity...
>
>[quote]
>Definition of assembly language:
>A programming language that is one step away from machine language.
>Each assembly language statement is translated into one machine
>instruction by the assembler. Programmers must be well versed in the
>computer's architecture, and, undocumented assembly language programs
>are difficult to maintain. It is hardware dependent; there is a
>different assembly language for each CPU series.
Exactly. It's still used today by some folks for speed or familiarity
but as you say below some more modern languages achieve similar
performance and are easier to code, better documented for writing
and then there's the maintenance issue - potentially a nightmare;
possibly only topped by APL for difficulty.
>Assembly Language Vs. Machine Language:
>Although often used synonymously, assembly language and machine
>language are not the same.
Quite so and this is where abelard's limited knowledge got him
knickered and twisted. He doesn't (didn't) know the difference and
has tried to bluff his way through.
>Assembly language is turned into machine
>language. For example, the assembly instruction COMPARE A,B is
>translated into COMPARE contents of memory bytes 2340-2350 with
>4567-4577 (where A and B happen to be located). The physical binary
>format of the machine instruction is specific to the computer it's
>running in.
And thus requires a different Assembler for each architecture.
>They Can Be Quite Different:
>Assembly languages are quite different between computers as is evident
>in the example below, which takes 16 lines of code for the mini and 82
>lines for the micro. The example changes Fahrenheit to Celsius.
I wonder if there's an instruction to change yak into a .....?
>Footnote to the sake of discussion -- It Used to All Be Assembly
>Language:
Then languages like Fortran and high-level Cobol, PL1 came along.
>In the past, control programs (operating systems, database managers,
>etc.) and many applications were written in assembly language to
>maximize the machine's performance. Today, C/C++ is widely used
>instead. Like assembly language, C/C++ can manipulate the bits at the
>machine level, but it is also portable to different computer platforms.
>There are C/C++ compilers for almost all computers.
>[end quote]
>
>Amen... then..?
Thanks for that Jason...
I hope so. I trust abelard will read this and learn something and let
us know which language he claims to be able to write in. So far he's
shuffled between 'machine language' but got confused if he was
referring to binary or assembler. Clearly it's the latter and this
might explain his nutty personality because every Assembler programmer
I've ever known has been a bit loopy ;-)
--
http://www.toucano.plus.com/I'mFromTheGovt-I'mHereToHelpYou.jpg
.
Relevant Pages
- When Knuth and I were young - Part 2
... It wasn't that I had anything against communications technology. ... machine was, of course, whatever machine language we had created. ... we got no instruction in how to program our own machine ... but the instructor clearly considered programming in Algol to be too ...
(comp.lang.asm.x86) - Re: Why C for operating systems
... But other programming languages have good bit manipulation primitives ... implementation can go a long way to make some of these language issues ... all be mapped by a compiler on normal C syntax for functions. ... every asm instruction and it would compile to a single instruction. ...
(comp.programming) - Re: Why C for operating systems
... But other programming languages have good bit manipulation primitives ... implementation can go a long way to make some of these language issues ... Access to the processor status register. ... every asm instruction and it would compile to a single instruction. ...
(comp.programming) - Re: What language are assemblers written in?
... What was the very first computer programming language? ... My definition of an assembly language ...
(comp.lang.asm.x86) - Re: Starter Language
... > advice on a language to start learning with. ... programming is a very broad term which includes very different types ... Most of the willing beginners go straight and learn any language of their ... assembly language seems too difficult to learn, ...
(comp.programming) |
|
