> > But it's not the tools that matter so much as the accomplishments and > > the social consequences. From these standpoints we're losing, not > > gaining, ground - despite all that glitters. > > Knowledge of application development, and the ability to > develop truly killer applications by standards of prior decades, is > percolating to the masses. This is a good thing. Humans think in higher-level > concepts, so the closer we bring computer languages to how humans think, the more > people will be able to program computers. Why should a normal person > care about the languages the machines use under the covers? And why > should a normal person be expected to program in assembler? > > I don't get the pessimism. I look around and I see advancement, not > decline, in technology. And it isn't just what glitters. > > Do you want to go back to the days where only the privileged > few could get access to a computer?
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. 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. 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.
