From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fc89c,97188312486d4578 X-Google-Attributes: gidfc89c,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,97188312486d4578 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,6154de2e240de72a X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,baaf5f793d03d420 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) Subject: Re: What's the best language to start with? [was: Re: Should I learn C or Pascal?] Date: 1996/09/05 Message-ID: <50m0na$m89@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 178611596 references: <4vroh3$17f@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <50iunc$arm@ns.broadvision.com> organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.ada nntp-posting-user: ok Date: 1996-09-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: patrick@broadvision.com (Patrick Horgan) writes: [Quoting a fairly old posting of mine about the startling result in "The IMP Language and Compiler"] >You don't state any conclusion from this, but I might imply that you think >that somehow this is an implication that people that have an assembler >language background are bad programmers in high level languages. You might *imply* it, but you sure as heck can't *infer* it, because *I* didn't imply it. >I hope you quote the paper in somewhat more detail, I already did. >because I'd like to know how much experience they had as programmers. It doesn't say. The EMAS project started in 1973, back when the ICL 4-75 (was this the same as the RCA Spectra?) -- a British System/360 look-alike -- was a new machine. The project started two years before the 4-75 was actually delivered. The first IMP compiler was an adaptation of the Atlas Autocode compiler. (Atlas Autocode was an Algol-like language.) They actually simulated 32-bit arithmetic and byte addressing (which is what the 4-75 had) on the 48-bit word-addressed KDF9! "For System 4, the compiler was bootstrapped from the KDF9 compiler via assembly language (due to difficulties with the manufacturer's early operating systems). This compiler was also bootstrapped onto the IBM 360/50." If there is anyone associated with the project reading this, perhaps they could supply some more information. I think that the EMAS project is an interesting part of computing history which deserves to be written up in rather more detail. >Generalizing from one small pool >of people with assembly language skills to any conclusions about the >relative worth of knowing or not knowing assembler, or whether people with >those skills do or do not write good code is suspect logically. You have completely mistaken the structure of my argument. The whole point of it is that I am *rebutting* a generalisation. If I wish to rebut "all swans are white", it is sufficient to exhibit ONE black swan; I am not obliged to show that all swans are black. (The swans one sees in Australia and New Zealand _are_ black, as it happens.) I was concerned to rebut the generalisation "exposure to assembly language helps people become better programmers, writing more efficient code, and it is difficult to become a good programmer without this experience", which I took to be Tim Behrendsen's claim. I exhibited a single real compiler-and-operating system project which delivered bloody good working product, where it was found that the people used to high level languages (Fortran? Algol? BCPL? They were *certainly* aware of PL/I and intended to build a translator from IMP to PL/I but found that they had more IMP compilers than there were PL/I compilers to translate for) delivered smaller faster better structured code than the people "with a background of assembly languages" (1401? 1130? /360?). This *establishes* no generalision, but it is good logic for *rebutting* one. -- Australian citizen since 14 August 1996. *Now* I can vote the xxxs out! Richard A. O'Keefe; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/%7Eok; RMIT Comp.Sci.