Actually, the 1401 had both Autocoder and SPS. The IBM assemblers included the
names
Autocoder
705
14xx
7070/73/74
7080
FORTRAN II Assembly Program (FAP)
709
709x
Macro Assembly Program (MAP, IBMAP)
704x
709x
STRAP
7030
Symbolic Optimal Assembly Program (SOAP)
650
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי
נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר
________________________________________
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of
Joel Ewing <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2025 9:55 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Assembler vs. assembly vs. machine code
External Message: Use Caution
Pre IBM/360 a number of different names were used for what we would now
call "Assemblers". On IBM 1400 series the name "Autocoder" was also
used. On the IBM 1620 it was called SPS (Symbolic Programming System.
On IBM 7000 series it was called the Macro Assembly Program or MAP.
JC Ewing
On 12/31/24 5:12 PM, Clement Clarke wrote:
> I cut my teeth on some English computers in the 1960's before the 360 was
> invented. We programmed in PLAN on the ICL 1900 and in Intercode on the
> English Electric LEOs. I am pretty sure we used to refer to them as
> Assemblers.
>
> Shell Oil in Melbourne had two LEO's. They were paper tape based machines
> instead of cards. And interestingly they were fully multiprogramming
> machines.
>
> However, I looked up the first "super computer" - the Atlas. The Atlas was
> apparently the first computer to have Virtual storage. And there is some
> discussion about Autocoders, which was the name given to what we would call
> Assemblers now, i think.
>
> Regarding machine language, ZAPS would be the closest anyone would get to
> that these days, I suspect? Or debugging under TEST perhaps?
>
> Clem
>
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 5:51 AM Phil Smith III <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Oops, I sent too soon: that Wikipedia page also distinguishes "assemblY
>> code" from the "assemblER", which is the thing that processes the code to
>> create [what I'd call] machine code. That makes a wee bit more sense,
>> though it's a tiny distinction that I've never seen before. If so, then we
>> write assembly code that the assembler assembles into machine code. Hmm.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Phil Smith III <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2024 1:44 PM
>> To: 'IBM Mainframe Discussion List' <[email protected]>; IBM
>> assembler list ([email protected]) <
>> [email protected]>; 'z/VM LIST ([email protected])' <
>> [email protected]>
>> Subject: Assembler vs. assembly vs. machine code
>>
>> (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://secure-web.cisco.com/1LxX16Yn0dml_4x8qIyGdjEbafd3Oeqie9AuhuzbukUc8j2rmyeek2ODQEpz7kqsLPb6-3s9EuIyC-IajeS5ExyVLKe0SQW8NcuDz3MIaUOENalkKGKTWarl0-SUuYXqSnOc5MJK0rIzVqZRh4LKXmtwLwNB5Iu_NGIgZapyfgqfBFh0KqRETgJVykKFimdt6-5ATHrYm8JjJWEPte_9KcD5VXK9n4EB4CtKbBvrh9YX943U1P0tRFyPf-AfvTivGR7rYl4WdYE2muSzQcO7C76AKiE-95opibaZu7QZO_pCFWeKDvl2T4Og6ZCn0qGAsg28sLIt_Z8MbZ-lJ5WdON5dJV_z_i3E7Cp-onJYLJDE3EiH_9YoHEm0wwjlVhkIf871WG9UMRTtDtpF7vKDudSiUMlMjBTTrMqmUfnoU8uI/https%3A%2F%2Fproject64.c64.org%2FSoftware%2Fmlcom.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
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
--
Joel C Ewing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
