From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 13 Aug 93 15:19:54 GMT
From: news.crd.ge.com!e7sa!groleau@uunet.uu.net  (Wes Groleau x1240 C73-8)
Subject: Re: forth/fifth generation languages?
Message-ID: <CBpEL6.7v4@crdnns.crd.ge.com>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <CBKG89.4vx@zoodle.robin.de> uli@zoodle.robin.de (Ulrich Grepel) wri
tes:
>In article <FOUTS.93Aug8152353@cello.hp.com> fouts@cello.hp.com (Marty Fouts) 
 
>writes:
>> Almost no one programs in machine language anymore, because
>> translators are nearly trivial to write.
>
>That's not true. On mainframes most patches are done this way. painframe
>indeed.

>Not only mainframes.  A translator is not trivial when your machine has 
only 16K of magnetic core, no external interfaces, small scale integration
(RTL), only 18 instructions, a design quirk that makes re-entrant subroutines
impossible, ... there's more, but you get the idea.  A stunning example of
"If it works, don't mess with it!"  Of course, I taught someone else how to
program it and moved on to "real" computers   :-)