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: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!gegeweb.org!aioe.org!not-for-mail
From: glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.pl1
Subject: Re: Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 17:10:33 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <hugkq9$u0t$1@speranza.aioe.org>
References: <hp95j8$i29$1@speranza.aioe.org>
   <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: HMhTmHE5eDtxsDRyX7W9/Q.user.speranza.aioe.org
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: tin/1.9.3-20080506 ("Dalintober") (UNIX) (Linux/2.6.26-2-686
 (i686))
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11365 comp.lang.fortran:24071
 comp.lang.pl1:1376
Date: 2010-06-06T17:10:33+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In comp.lang.fortran Arthur Evans  Jr <nospam@someisp.net> 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.

Unless you are actually doing it.  There are stories from the early
days of S/360 about patching object decks by adding cards.
As each card has a starting address and length, you could easily
patch a few bytes by punching a new card with the appropriate
bytes and adding it later in the object deck.  In that case,
one might actually try to keep the distinction.

Otherwise, I agree.

-- glen