On Sun, 21 Oct 2001, Jerome Tan wrote:
> > On the contrary, assembly languages are the most short-lived of > > the programming languages. They DIE as soon as the manufacturer > > stops producing the associated processor. > > > No... they don't die. The reference of the instructions and the bits/codes, > etc. change... I do not know why English is such a beautiful language that so many shades of meaning can be associated with the concept of DEATH of an assembly language. Specific assembly languages for specific processors have died. Period. They are dead because the processor is not in use anymore. No one programs in that assembly language because the processor is not there anymore to program for. Naanhin pa ang damo kung patay na ang kabayo? > No... they don't die. The reference of the instructions and the bits/codes, > etc. change... When the instruction set changes, then you have a different processor. When the manufacturer freezes the processor into silicon, the instruction set is fixed. Any change in the instruction set is usually an improvement such as when i386 processor was upgraded to i486 and then to the Pentium. Or the change could be a completely new processor. I think what you are trying to say (and please correct me if I'm wrong), is that the practice of assembly language programming in general (using some assembly language like i386 assembly) will probably never die. Time critical portions of some applications need to be written in assembly language. However, that does not change the historical fact that many assembly languages have died. PMana _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
