When I was working on MVS, a friend was writing games for Z80 and x86. In his world, people used "assembler" and "machine code" without thought. Also, many younger micro programmers didn't know about (or couldn't afford) assemblers such as Hisoft's DevPac and they often wrote BASIC to load machine code the hard way.
To me assembly language is what I write, an assembler is a program such as IEV90 which takes my source and assembles it, and machine code isn't a term I'd normally use but I guess it'd be the loaded module, as I'd see in a dump. Roops On Mon, 30 Dec 2024, 18:43 Phil Smith III, <li...@akphs.com> 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 >
