[Chicago] Question about Machine Language.

Mon Dec 7 18:35:16 EST 2015

I suppose at a philosophical level languages are made to communicate, and communication is an interpreted experience. Even mathematics, which is nearly universal and concrete, is still interpreted and must be learned. And on that note, it has evolved to what it is today. I'm sure, at one point many people refused to write in modern numerals in favor of Roman numerals because they did not see how the concept advanced knowledge.

The concept of zero was a philosophical conundrum and I am sure every other concept faced steep opposition from a lack of understanding. Someone writes a genius little module in one language and it does not convert well because of a lack of understanding or other difficulties. But it serves a purpose and therefore, if it's use expands, potentially advances what could be accomplished with the new tool.

If you haven't studied automata theory that seems to explain language on a conceptual level fairly well.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 7, 2015, at 4:41 PM, Randy Baxley <randy7771026 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> No, that is what a core dump of 'It is not natural for most of us and this is just binary text not actual machine language' would look like.  We used to get a core dump of our IBM 370 that was about waist high.  We actually never see machine language but rather various representations that look like this or are very similar to assembler.  You can see an example of a hex dump here.  This type of dump can be useful if someone inserts a worm in your code. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-the-difference-between-assembly-language-and-machine-language
> 
>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 4:09 PM, JS Irick <hundredpercentjuice at gmail.com> wrote:
>> That'd be pretty rad, and a little short given the difficulty of writing to the screen.
>> 
>> Anyway:
>> >>> "".join(map(lambda x:chr(int(x,2)),"01001001 01110100 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101110 01101111 01110100 00100000 01101110 01100001 01110100 01110101 01110010 01100001 01101100 00100000 01100110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01101101 01101111 01110011 01110100 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01110101 01110011 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101010 01110101 01110011 01110100 00100000 01100010 01101001 01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 00100000 01110100 01100101 01111000 01110100 00100000 01101110 01101111 01110100 00100000 01100001 01100011 01110100 01110101 01100001 01101100 00100000 01101101 01100001 01100011 01101000 01101001 01101110 01100101 00100000 01101100 01100001 01101110 01100111 01110101 01100001 01100111 01100101".split(" ")))
>> 
>> 'It is not natural for most of us and this is just binary text not actual machine language'
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Lewit, Douglas <d-lewit at neiu.edu> wrote:
>>> Hi Randy,
>>> 
>>> I'm afraid to ask, but is that the "Hello World!" program in machine code?
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Randy Baxley <randy7771026 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 01001001 01110100 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101110 01101111 01110100 00100000 01101110 01100001 01110100 01110101 01110010 01100001 01101100 00100000 01100110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01101101 01101111 01110011 01110100 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01110101 01110011 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101010 01110101 01110011 01110100 00100000 01100010 01101001 01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 00100000 01110100 01100101 01111000 01110100 00100000 01101110 01101111 01110100 00100000 01100001 01100011 01110100 01110101 01100001 01101100 00100000 01101101 01100001 01100011 01101000 01101001 01101110 01100101 00100000 01101100 01100001 01101110 01100111 01110101 01100001 01100111 01100101 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Lewit, Douglas <d-lewit at neiu.edu> wrote:
>>>>> Thanks for the correction Naomi, but that didn't really answer my question.  Why don't we all just study machine language and that's it?
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Naomi Ceder <naomi.ceder at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7 December 2015 at 13:57, Lewit, Douglas <d-lewit at neiu.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I was reading an article on the web about how all programming languages are "Turing complete".  I believe that basically means that all programming languages are able to communicate with the computer's CPU using the binary codes of machine language. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Uh, that's not actually what "Turing Complete" means...  It doesn't  have anything to do with binary or machine language... from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness):
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "To show that something is Turing complete, it is enough to show that it can be used to simulate some Turing complete system. For example, an imperative language is Turing complete if it has conditional branching (e.g., "if" and "goto" statements, or a "branch if zero" instruction. See OISC) and the ability to change an arbitrary amount ofmemory locations (e.g., the ability to maintain an arbitrary number of variables). Since this is almost always the case, most (if not all) imperative languages are Turing complete if the limitations of finite memory are ignored."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Naomi
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Okay then.... so why don't we get rid of C, C++, Java, Python, Ruby, Perl, Ocaml, Haskell, C#, F#, etc, etc and why don't we call just code in machine language?  Bear in mind that I'm asking this question from the point of view of the Devil's Advocate because I know almost nothing about machine language.  But it's an interesting question.  It's related to the question, "Why don't we have one universal natural language?  Let's get rid of English, French, Spanish, German, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, Hebrew, etc, etc, and replace them all with one universal language that everyone understands".
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I'm interested in reading your thoughts and ideas.  Thanks.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Douglas.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> P.S.  Sorry to hear about the Django Study Group.  I thought Mark Graves was very friendly and did a great job of demonstrating various web applications using Python.  
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Chicago mailing list
>>>>>>> Chicago at python.org
>>>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Naomi Ceder
>>>>>> https://plus.google.com/u/0/111396744045017339164/about
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Chicago mailing list
>>>>>> Chicago at python.org
>>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Chicago mailing list
>>>>> Chicago at python.org
>>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Chicago mailing list
>>>> Chicago at python.org
>>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Chicago mailing list
>>> Chicago at python.org
>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> ====
>> JS Irick
>> 312-307-8904
>> Consultant: truqua.com
>> Coach: atlascrossfit.com
>> Programmer: juicetux.com
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chicago mailing list
>> Chicago at python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Chicago mailing list
> Chicago at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/chicago/attachments/20151207/6b3adf9b/attachment.html>