PureBasic Forums - English

luis wrote:Don't know, in the '80 for me it was quite obvious. Not saying it was obvious in the '70. But from the '80 is still a respectable 30+ years.
I fear to ask, but what's the meaning of the cartridge ?

It was my first assembler.

luis wrote:Assembler is the program translating the assembly to machine language.
Assembl-er, compil-er.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembler

The funny thing is even the page hosting the image above tells the same.
http://www.pcmuseum.ca/details.asp?id=3 ... e=software

This assembler should also look familiar -> http://flatassembler.net/

You are technically correct luis about the current definition,
but it was quite common in my environment for using the opcode language itself to be called "coding in assembler".
Perhaps it was due to the CXL4003 cartridge label?
I can see where people interpreted it as editing assembler.
Also I was introduced to it as assembler language, not assembly language.
This was over thirty years ago, when computer clubs were big.
Our M.A.C.E. meetings would draw hundreds.
In 1983 I gave a presentation with over 500 in attendence.

Only Mostek 6502 or Motorola 68000 for me.
I never worked with Intel, so what's at the link is not familiar.

netmaestro wrote: What cartridge? I can't find any reference to a cartridge.

The picture.

heartbone wrote:... about the current definition ...

Just look at an ADS of that era, 1975: -> http://www.vintagecomputer.net/CISC367/ ... mputer.pdf

".... includes an easy to follow assembly instruction manual"

So you see, people already used the right terminology, some people were just wrong.

The picture.

Ah, I see now. I thought it was a book at first.

Maybe gnozal will come and tell us to get back on topic and talk about him some more..

Here the same for TI 99 4A


looks rather, how a cartridge

luis wrote:

heartbone wrote:... about the current definition ...

Just look at an ADS of that era, 1975: -> http://www.vintagecomputer.net/CISC367/ ... mputer.pdf

".... includes an easy to follow assembly instruction manual"

So you see, people already used the right terminology, some people were just wrong.

Is that a bad joke luis?
Because that "assembly instruction manual" refers to hardware assembly, putting together the physical circuitry.

However your point is understood, that we were using inaccurate terminology back in the day.
Much like today when some say "safety deposit box" instead of "safe deposit box".

Ever notice how (most) females pronounce coupon "queue ponn", whereas (most) men say "coo ponn"?

BorisTheOld wrote:When I first started my software business, C had not even been released as a viable language..

No, but when you chose PB, C was very viable. And in reality, the syntax is not very different if you can get past the braces. And if you can't, you are loading it up with macros anyway. Just seems silly to shackle yourself to PB when you don't care for its syntax, and C has so many more libraries available, and in every platform imaginable.

heartbone wrote:Is that a bad joke luis?

I wish, I've just misread it like an idiot

But anyway it was really called assembly from the start, but people started to mix the terminology for some reason.

This one has a "/" between editor and assembler and probably was a good idea -> http://www.mainbyte.com/ti99/software/s ... ditor.html

Tenaja wrote:

BorisTheOld wrote:When I first started my software business, C had not even been released as a viable language..

No, but when you chose PB, C was very viable. And in reality, the syntax is not very different if you can get past the braces. And if you can't, you are loading it up with macros anyway. Just seems silly to shackle yourself to PB when you don't care for its syntax, and C has so many more libraries available, and in every platform imaginable.

Firstly, I have a 37 year investment in BASIC, MASM, and COBOL code.

Secondly, if I use "C" I need to interface directly with all the libraries, whereas Fred has done all the work for me if I use PB.

Thirdly, I'm not shackled to any particular language. My in-house Data Dictionary package allows me to automatically generate code for any language I choose to write templates for.

luis wrote:Do you mean assembly ?

No, I mean Assembler. It's the terminology that we used at IBM. Everyone called it Assembler Language, or just Assembler.

An assembly was something that one performed, as in, "I couldn't run the assembly because I dropped my card deck", or "I can't show you the assembly because a giant space goat ate the printout".

http://ripsaw.cac.psu.edu/~mloewen/Oldt ... S-0021.jpg

"Basic Assembler language source programs are translated into object programs by the Basic Assembler"

It seems they too have mixed up the program with the language, and ended up using the same for both. Tsk Tsk.

Or maybe they didn't know how to call the language, and simply called it "the basic-like language we compile using the Basic Assembler: the Basic Assembler's language -> Basic Assembler language".

But IBM actually preferred the assembler (for language) terminology almost everywhere in those years (they are still using it on mainframes afaik, maybe for historical reasons, for example z/OS) and only for more recent stuff they started to finally use the term assembly. Maybe simply a consequence of people being replaced in time ? Who knows.

Anyhow I remember very well the same, I always heard a lot of people referring to the assembly as assembler, even at the times when we were using 6502 an Z80. I would say only 90% of the people using an assembler called the language assembly on the c64 scene for the example, and even less on the PC scene, maybe a consequence of its IBM origins . It's one of those things when someone use the wrong (it's logically less appropriate) term first and then another pick it up, and the similitude between them didn't help. Proof is it's something well going on still today, even if the percentages are shrinking further.

Well, ok, now I know you REALLY meant assembler, and I know why.

luis wrote:It's one of those things when someone use the wrong (it's logically less appropriate) term first and then another pick it up, and the similitude between them didn't help. Proof is it's something well going on still today, even if the percentages are shrinking further.

Native English speakers understand that English is essentially a grammar-less language. Word meanings, structure, spelling, and usage, like sentence structure, can be modified in any way the speaker chooses.

So for example, "Assembler" might be called "Assembly, and "C" might be called "that stupid language".

BorisTheOld wrote: Native English speakers understand that English is essentially a grammar-less language

Yep, like it's instead of its, your instead of you're, etc. Grammar-less rules. Here in Italy bastardization of the language is common too.

BorisTheOld wrote: and "C" might be called "that stupid language"

Sure, everything and everyone can be called that. Some more than others.
Still it doesn't change its accomplishments a bit. Not last the fact the compiler and libraries you are using now are based on that.

luis wrote:Still it doesn't change its accomplishments a bit. Not last the fact the compiler and libraries you are using now are based on that.

Not to mention the OS!

BorisTheOld wrote:Native English speakers understand that English is essentially a grammar-less language. Word meanings, structure, spelling, and usage, like sentence structure, can be modified in any way the speaker chooses.

I did not want to create a new thread for this article about new programmers, and your point about the meaning of English seems like a good segue.
Apparently the horse racing business is not doing very well.

Coding as a second language? Kentucky jockeys to be next to join the movement

UBUNTU user

BorisTheOld wrote:No, I mean Assembler. It's the terminology that we used at IBM...

An assembly was something that one performed...

Hi BorisTheOld. I'm afraid that I'd have to respectfully disagree with you on that. Assemblers are merely compilers/translators of the Assembly language. The prevalent terminology was to disambiguate the higher level functions of the Assembler from its basic Assembly language core.

Page 3 of this little tutorial, direct from the folks at IBM, explains this clearly. (PDF)

TI-994A wrote:Assemblers are merely compilers/translators of the Assembly language. The prevalent terminology was to disambiguate the higher level functions of the Assembler from its basic Assembly language core.

I understand all that, but I was talking about Assembler as it was when I used it 50 years ago. That's why I called Assembler, Assembler, and not Assembly. My brain is not so addled that I don't know the difference.

You have to remember, this was not long after the time when computers had breasts as well as brains.