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: 103376,6609c40f81b32989
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,9bdec20bcc7f3687
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: 101deb,e67cdb1dcad3c668
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: 
 gida07f3367d7,gid8d3408f8c3,gidbda4de328f,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news5
From: "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.pl1
Subject: Re: Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 11:15:57 -0400
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95
Message-ID: <hugevn02qfa@news5.newsguy.com>
References: <hp95j8$i29$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <4bb9c72c$0$6990$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <pan.2010.04.05.20.51.46.20000@none.net>
 <4bba8bf1$0$56418$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <4bbb2246$8$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
 <4bbb5386$0$56422$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <m2tyrnjc5f.fsf@pushface.org> <4bbdf5c6$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
 <f5a9304e-e6eb-40b2-8944-a6ca4bc92b1b@q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
 <4c0a2e36$0$34205$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
 <4c0b234f$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
 <nospam-C84D27.10531806062010@earthlink.us.supernews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 
 p649fdd2344c9eb445a4d8a2fd249d1dbf6481c575890021e.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US;
 rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1 Hamster-Pg/1.13
In-Reply-To: <nospam-C84D27.10531806062010@earthlink.us.supernews.com>
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:12331 comp.lang.fortran:26387
 comp.lang.pl1:1486
Date: 2010-06-06T11:15:57-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 6/6/2010 10:53 AM, Arthur Evans Jr wrote:
> In article<4c0b234f$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>,
>   Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz<spamtrap@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.

I never understood this business of making a distinction between machine 
language and assembler--maybe they changed things after I stopped 
working with assembler but in my day it was a 1:1 correspondence--you 
knew exactly what binary each assembly language instruction would emit, 
and the only practical difference was that someone who didn't have an 
idiot-savant ability to remember numerical codes could learn to work in 
assembler in a reasonable time.

Perhaps he's looking for programs in microcode or something.