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!news1.google.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news1
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 13:51:23 -0400
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95
Message-ID: <hugnna01g7j@news1.newsguy.com>
References: <hp95j8$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>
	<hugevn02qfb@news5.newsguy.com> <m2k4qc3y0r.fsf@pushface.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 
 pa460f784afc7c9623e1c4b9cccb3b0dae2a4b378cc90daba.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: <m2k4qc3y0r.fsf@pushface.org>
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11370 comp.lang.fortran:24075
 comp.lang.pl1:1379
Date: 2010-06-06T13:51:23-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 6/6/2010 12:51 PM, Simon Wright wrote:
> "J. Clarke"<jclarke.usenet@cox.net>  writes:
>
>> On 6/6/2010 12:25 AM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>>> In<4c0a2e36$0$34205$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 06/05/2010
>>>      at 08:58 PM, Dave Frank<robin51@dodo.com.au>   said:
>>>
>>>> Of course, the programs were in machine code.
>>>
>>> Your saying "of course" does not make it true, or even plausible. You
>>> keep refusing to actually provide evidence, or even independent
>>> claims. 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.
>>
>> What do you believe to be the difference between machine code and assembler?
>
> Perhaps he means they look different :-)
>
> Ferranti's Fixed-Point AutoCode: v1 = v2 + v3
> Binary: 000 01 0 000 00001 00010 00011
> Spoken as: 0110 1 2 3
>
> Clearly not the same at all!!!

Yeah.  On a 360 that would be two steps (there isn't an instruction to 
add two registers and put the result in a third):

LR 1,2
AR 1,3

Binary 00011000 0001 0010
        00011010 0001 0011