> > 1. The macro assembler is effectively the basis for 'high level' > > languages, all of which produce exactly the same thing: machine code. > > So whether we're teaching machines using their native language or some > > 'higher level' dialect we're really just saying the same thing > > differently. > > More people are able to say those things, which drives > evolution on the quality of the things we say.
The essential ingredient of computer programming isn't the words or dialect but the logic that's applied to a given problem (assuming for the sake of discussion that everything we do can be viewed as problem solving). Here's a tidbit of macro assembler speak that could have been written decades ago (and even longer, but it was assembler H that did away with the naming length barrier): SAVE_ENVIRONMENT OPEN mydataset SELECT (standard SQL) RUN_REPORT myreport,printer6 CLOSE mydataset RESTORE_ENVIRONMENT RETURN Each of these macro instructions expands to machine instructions that the author needn't be aware of. And these particular words are just my off-the-top choices. In fact, any words would have been used as macro names, and arguments passed to the macro call could be positional (1,2,3) or keyword (mydata = xxxx, printer = yyyy) With a little more time, I could construct an example that looks remarkably like an OOP exercise. IF/ENDIF, DO/ENDDO, DO CASE, etc were early adaptations. The upshot is that there isn't a single thing that any modern, high level language can do that couldn't have been done with that language, and using it does not require an 8 year degree, just an ability to think logically and a dictionary of the language, which is true with all languages. Don't have a macro call to do something? Then have a "macro maker" make it, who can use all of the facilities of the machine to do so, and introduce the new macro in an orderly way. No, not everyone can write macros, but just how many does it take to fill a library? > > 2. it's not the "how we do" part that really matters, it's the "what > > we do", and on that count our record is pitiful. > > I don't follow this. We are using computers everywhere, advancing our > understanding of the universe, coming up with new ways to model just > about everything, for example. > > So what do you want us to do with computer technology that someone > somewhere isn't already doing? We could have achieved democracy and the masses could have a useful information supply, two things that would have shaped our world entirely differently. > And how we do things certainly matters. You can decide to hike over a > hill, dig a tunnel through it, or build a flying machine and > soar over it. There are providences of that super fast, binary switching machine called a computer, not the language. My point of all this is that we didn't need a thousand different tools/languages in the first place, that we could have done everything we wanted to do with the original language. But we behave like flocks, always rushing to the Next Big Thing without really thinking about what it is we're doing. Bill > Paul _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
