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: 103376,703c4f68db81387d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!trndny03.POSTED!c2bfcbcf!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: [OT] Assembler vs. assembly
References: <4229bad9$0$1019$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>
 <1110032222.447846.167060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
 <871xau9nlh.fsf@insalien.org>
 <3SjWd.103128$Vf.3969241@news000.worldonline.dk>
 <87r7iu85lf.fsf@insalien.org>
 <y8lWd.103136$Vf.3969714@news000.worldonline.dk>
 <87is4598pm.fsf@insalien.org> <1110054476.533590@athnrd02>
 <u7jkliykd.fsf@obry.org> <1110059861.560004@athnrd02>
 <87wtsl7jts.fsf@insalien.org>
 <1110264816.858853.54020@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
 <mailman.0.1110280962.23655.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
Message-ID: <opsnbn3jhn5afhvo@localhost>
From: "Ed Falis" <falis@verizon.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=us-ascii
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Opera M2(BETA1)/8.00 (Linux, build 913)
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 14:06:55 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.19.208.151
X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net
X-Trace: trndny03 1110290815 70.19.208.151 (Tue, 08 Mar 2005 09:06:55 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 09:06:55 EST
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8856
Date: 2005-03-08T14:06:55+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 11:21:59 +0000, Marius Amado Alves  
<amado.alves@netcabo.pt> wrote:

>
> On 8 Mar 2005, at 06:53, Jerry Coffin 'taught' us that the language is  
> "assembly", not "assembler."
>
> This is fad. Of the 1990's I think. "Assembler" is correct. By use. To  
> this day. Personally I find the fad irritating. "Assembly" tried to fix  
> terminology that does not need fixing. To avoid colision us stupid folks  
> just call the compiler "translator".
>

My memory isn't what it used to be, but I think we called it assembly  
language (or interchangeably, assembler) back in the mid to late 70's.

- Ed