On 9 Oct 2006 10:24:43 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main
(Message-ID:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Mills) wrote:
Paraphrasing, a programming language has
- Variables
- Data manipulation (MOVE, MVCL, PARSE, whatever)
- Flow control (CALL, PERFORM, DO, etc.)
I don't think a table of op codes would meet that definition
Think back to your earliest classes in computers. Didn't
some of you actually code in "machine language"? If you
have ever
zapped opcodes in a program, you were doing maintenance
programming in machine language.
True, a table of opcodes is not a language. However, that
table along with the documentation and descriptions of the
operands does define a machine language.
OTOH, when wiring plugboards, you manipulate incoming data
with at least some level of flow control. I don't feel like
taking the time to think through whether I think this meets a
reasonable definition of a language.
--
I cannot receive mail at the address this was sent from.
To reply directly, send to ar23hur "at" intergate "dot" com
I apologize to anyone who gets this twice, I originally
replied directly to the Newsgroup.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
