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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,703c4f68db81387d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!transit.news.xs4all.nl!195.241.76.212.MISMATCH!tiscali!transit1.news.tiscali.nl!dreader2.news.tiscali.nl!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: [OT] Assembler vs. assembly
References: <4229bad9$0$1019$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>
 <1110032222.447846.167060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
 <871xau9nlh.fsf@insalien.org>
 <3SjWd.103128$Vf.3969241@news000.worldonline.dk>
 <87r7iu85lf.fsf@insalien.org>
 <y8lWd.103136$Vf.3969714@news000.worldonline.dk>
 <87is4598pm.fsf@insalien.org> <1110054476.533590@athnrd02>
 <u7jkliykd.fsf@obry.org> <1110059861.560004@athnrd02>
 <87wtsl7jts.fsf@insalien.org>
 <1110264816.858853.54020@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
 <mailman.0.1110280962.23655.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
From: Ludovic Brenta <ludovic.brenta@insalien.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 20:18:10 +0100
Message-ID: <87ekeqgd59.fsf@insalien.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:f1XPnENXTkvz90BwC3S97Cq0Tx8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Tiscali bv
NNTP-Posting-Date: 08 Mar 2005 20:17:48 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.134.245.213
X-Trace: 1110309468 dreader2.news.tiscali.nl 44067 83.134.245.213:32814
X-Complaints-To: abuse@tiscali.nl
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8874
Date: 2005-03-08T20:17:48+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Marius Amado Alves writes:
> On 8 Mar 2005, at 06:53, Jerry Coffin 'taught' us that the language is
> "assembly", not "assembler."
>
> This is fad. Of the 1990's I think. "Assembler" is correct. By
> use. To this day. Personally I find the fad irritating. "Assembly"
> tried to fix terminology that does not need fixing. To avoid
> colision us stupid folks just call the compiler "translator".

OK, since we Ada enthusiasts keep bickering about "Ada not ADA", I
understand and respect Jerry's distaste for "assembler" to denote a
language.  From now on, I will refer to the language as "assembly" and
use "assembler" to refer to the language processor for that language
(or, to be more precise, instance of this class of languages :) ).

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.