Yep, the coding in the book is full of PEEK and POKE! -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Mike Schwab Sent: Monday, December 30, 2024 2:00 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Assembler vs. assembly vs. machine code
Tandy TRS-80 Model 1 basic had POKE commands where you gave an address and a value to store there. One published use I remember was to generate certain graphic characters to turn on and off a part of the character cell since the difference displayed between the two values in the byte was one of six rectangles in the character set was different. On Mon, Dec 30, 2024 at 12:43 PM Phil Smith III <[email protected]> wrote: > > (Cross-posted to IBM-MAIN, IBMVM, and the IBM assembler list) > > I just finished a book, The Impossible Fortress by Jason Rekulak, which I > quite enjoyed. Part of the plot involves characters writing code on a > Commodore 64, including some "machine code". It seemed clear from the > description that they meant what I'd call assembler; some Googling quickly > found https://project64.c64.org/Software/mlcom.pdf, a guide to such > programming for the C64 which definitely seems to blur the terms. > > I wrote the author, who cheerfully confirmed that yes, they're used > interchangeably in that world. > > Which led me to wonder several things: > 1. Which platforms call it assembler and which call it assembly? (And > why?) 2. Am I odd in thinking that in our world, "machine code" is the hex > that the hardware expects, and assembler is the opcodes/mnemonics that we > mostly use? > 3. What are we "assembling"? > > On #1, I suspect that we call it assemblER because that's what ASMXF and H > and HL call themselves as much as any other reason. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_language says in part "assembly > language (alternatively assembler language...or symbolic machine code)", > which confirms that it's blurry but doesn't otherwise clarify. > > It also answers, kinda, #3: > > The term "assembler" is generally attributed to Wilkes, Wheeler and Gill in > their 1951 book The Preparation of Programs for an Electronic Digital > Computer,... who, however, used the term to mean "a program that assembles > another program consisting of several sections into a single program". > > So perhaps the two a-words aren't even really appropriate! Too late now, of > course... > > What say ye? Does any of this conflict with your usage/thoughts? > > ...phsiii > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send > email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
