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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,6609c40f81b32989
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: 101deb,e67cdb1dcad3c668
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,gidbda4de328f,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.pl1
Subject: Re: Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 06:40:07 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <huiia5$2k1$1@news.eternal-september.org>
References: <hp95j8$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> <op.vdv17504z25lew@macpro-eth1.krischik.com>
 <4c0cc11c$0$56569$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 10:40:06 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx03.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="V8SydqRRXuF8ysuwvpMn7w";
	logging-data="2689"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ej8rVG8ukwZygH1h1PotE"
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
In-Reply-To: <4c0cc11c$0$56569$c30e37c6@exi-reader.telstra.net>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hfxRtnQ5okP1uvjKq3koKExdn3k=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11400 comp.lang.fortran:24121
 comp.lang.pl1:1395
Date: 2010-06-07T06:40:07-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

robin wrote:
> "Martin Krischik" <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message news:op.vdv17504z25lew@macpro-eth1.krischik.com...
> | Am 06.06.2010, 17:19 Uhr, schrieb J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@cox.net>:
> |
> | > On 6/6/2010 12:25 AM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> |
> | > What do you believe to be the difference between machine code and
> | > assembler?
> |
> | 6502 Assembler:
> |
> | LDA #10
> |
> | 6502 Machine code:
> |
> | A9 10
> |
> | Any more silly questions?
> 
> That assembler was of a much later period than the one under discussion,
> namely, the 1940s-1950s. 
> 
> 

If you want to talk *really* old assemblers, look at SOAP.  The hardware 
had no core, only drum memory, and each H/W instruction contained the 
drum address of the next instruction to be executed.  A big function of 
the assembler was figuring out where to store the instructions on the 
drum so that the next instruction was under the R/W head just as the 
previous finished executing -- based on the instruction timings.  Try 
doing that by hand for a large program!