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!news2.google.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news2
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 15:17:26 -0400
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95
Message-ID: <hugt0812ccm@news2.newsguy.com>
References: <hp95j8$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$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>
 <nospam-C84D27.10531806062010@earthlink.us.supernews.com>
 <hugkq9$u0t$1@speranza.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 
 pe62b8e31a5f7968d13953bb4c88e8749a2e6ca82ff5249b5.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US;
 rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1 Hamster-Pg/1.13
In-Reply-To: <hugkq9$u0t$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:12344 comp.lang.fortran:26395
 comp.lang.pl1:1494
Date: 2010-06-06T15:17:26-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 6/6/2010 1:10 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> 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.

The main distinction for me was that dumps don't come out in assembler. 
  But I never thought of machine code and assembler being distinct as a 
result--just two ways to write the same thing.