I had always thought that assembler was the language as well as the program that translated the assembler code into machine language, and the process of doing the translation was the assembly. But..... I just dug out a book from my ancient days (copyright 1976) called "assembly language and the IBM 360 and 370 computers" by Walter Rudd. He calls the language assembly and the translator the assembler. The binary code coming out of the assembler step that can be executed is machine language. Yeah, I'm skipping the linkage editor/binder and other stuff.
Rex -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> On Behalf Of Phil Smith III Sent: Monday, December 30, 2024 12:51 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Assembler vs. assembly vs. machine code 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 <li...@akphs.com> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2024 1:44 PM To: 'IBM Mainframe Discussion List' <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU>; IBM assembler list (assembler-l...@listserv.uga.edu) <assembler-l...@listserv.uga.edu>; 'z/VM LIST (ib...@listserv.uark.edu)' <ib...@listserv.uark.edu> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://project64.c64.org/Software/mlcom.pdf__;!!KjMRP1Ixj6eLE0Fj!plgujwy0ciselzXz7cbhdD3wus07rQBCxCejP23hINa3U1XWrvMTvZiIK_Z5FTw_VJzUkpN88hbRIck$ , 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_language__;!!KjMRP1Ixj6eLE0Fj!plgujwy0ciselzXz7cbhdD3wus07rQBCxCejP23hINa3U1XWrvMTvZiIK_Z5FTw_VJzUkpN8G_5QYSA$ 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 lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
