The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Andrew Reilly andrew-newspost at
Thu Aug 21 08:02:38 CEST 2008

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,
> 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.


More information about the Python-list mailing list