On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:36:39 +0000, sln wrote: >>Whats os interresting about all this hullabaloo is that nobody has coded >>machine code here, and know's squat about it. >> >>I'm not talking assembly language. Don't you know that there are >>routines that program machine code? Yes, burned in, bitwise encodings >>that enable machine instructions? Nothing below that. >> >>There is nobody here, who ever visited/replied with any thought >>relavence that can be brought foward to any degree, meaning anything, >>nobody.... >> >>sln > > At most, your trying to validate you understanding. But you don't pose > questions, you pose terse inflamatory declarations. > > You make me sick!
Could you elaborate a little on what it is that you're upset about? I suspect that there are probably quite a few readers of these posts that have designed and built their own processors, and coded them in their own machine language. I have, and that was before FPGAs started to make that exercise quite commonplace. But I don't see how that's at all relevant to the debate about the power or other characteristics of programming languages. Certainly anyone who's programmed a machine in assembly language has a pretty fair understanding of what the machine and the machine language is doing, even though they don't choose to bang the bits together manually. Hope you get better. -- Andrew -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
