The Importance of Terminology's Quality

[Andrew Reilly]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:36:39 +0000, sln wrote:

>>Whats os interresting about all this hullabaloo is that nobody has coded
>>machine code here, and know's squat about it.
>>
>>I'm not talking assembly language. Don't you know that there are
>>routines that program machine code? Yes, burned in, bitwise encodings
>>that enable machine instructions? Nothing below that.
>>
>>There is nobody here, who ever visited/replied with any thought
>>relavence that can be brought foward to any degree, meaning anything,
>>nobody....
>>
>>sln
> 
> At most, your trying to validate you understanding. But you don't pose
> questions, you pose terse inflamatory declarations.
> 
> You make me sick!

Could you elaborate a little on what it is that you're upset about?  I 
suspect that there are probably quite a few readers of these posts that 
have designed and built their own processors, and coded them in their own 
machine language.  I have, and that was before FPGAs started to make that 
exercise quite commonplace.  But I don't see how that's at all relevant 
to the debate about the power or other characteristics of programming 
languages.  Certainly anyone who's programmed a machine in assembly 
language has a pretty fair understanding of what the machine and the 
machine language is doing, even though they don't choose to bang the bits 
together manually.

Hope you get better.

-- 
Andrew