The problem is that all addresses are relative to something. Some are relative to a base register, some are relative to the current instruction. Even absolute addresses are relative to zero. ;-)
How about base-free code? That sounds like a positive thing. (I avoided the temptation to to suggest "freebase" lest that be considered to have a negative connotation.) === > Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 17:13:30 -0400 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Base registers > To: [email protected] > > Why don't we "jump" to the underlying notion of the "jump" instructions, > or more accurately "branch relative" instructions, which is relative > addressing: "relative address oriented programming". > > I'll admit that it's not concise, but I'm optimistic we won't have a > religious war about the resulting acronym. > > -- > > Regards, Gord Tomlin > Action Software International > (a division of Mazda Computer Corporation) > Tel: (905) 470-7113, Fax: (905) 470-6507 > > > On 2012-06-17 09:05, John Gilmore wrote: > > Words can of course have different specialized meanings in different > > contexts, but there is ordinarily an evolutionary path between these > > meanings. > > > > Physicians, for example, talk of "senile changes", meaning those > > associated with aging, in a way that is entirely devoid of pejorative > > intent. Or again, Chaucer and his contemporaries used the word "lewd" > > to mean lay, not in holy orders; but there is a path between this > > meaning and the modern one: the clergy did not often make what we call > > lewd gestures in public. > > > > I myself find 'baseless' very unsatisfactory, in part because it is > > not at all transparent. Thus, while I have no emotional investment in > > the term "jump-based", I do believe a new one is needed; 'baseless' > > can scarcely avoid connotations of dispensability when in fact it is > > the base registers that are largely dispensable. > > > > We need to look forward to a time when the use of base registers, > > multiple ones in particular, and the arbitrary segmentation of code > > into 4096-byte pieces will be perceived as a quaint, historically > > interesting but obsolete practices; and a new contrasting term will be > > helpful in changing the current "vulgar" mind set. (Mr Gilmartin's > > use of vulgar, which evolved from the Latin phrase "mobile vulgus", is > > open to criticism; but that is a subject for another time and place.) > > > > Alternative suggestions? > > > > John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA > > > >
