Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 12:21:43 -0200 From: =?UTF-8?Q?fran=C3=A7ai_s?= <romapera15@gmail.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [OFF-TOPIC] A real programmer would not stoop to wasting machine capacity to do the assembly as said Richard Hamming? Message-ID: <CAK_6Rwf1-8Eq7PtKwBqT%2BFFaRir2Qw7f%2BzhThxHi3a1zd7oGLQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAK_6Rwenaphg00O9TnGCeAn_7-knBQMd7eq-mR%2Be7VRE2p04AQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAK_6Rwenaphg00O9TnGCeAn_7-knBQMd7eq-mR%2Be7VRE2p04AQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Is true that a real programmer would not stoop to wasting machine capacity to do the assembly? 2014-12-19 11:52 GMT-02:00 fran=C3=A7ai s <romapera15@gmail.com>: > > [quote=3D"http://worrydream.com/dbx/"] > Reactions to SOAP and Fortran > Richard Hamming -- The Art of Doing Science and Engineering, p25 (pdf boo= k) > > In the beginning we programmed in absolute binary... Finally, a Symbolic > Assembly Program was devised -- after more years than you are apt to > believe during which most programmers continued their heroic absolute > binary programming. At the time [the assembler] first appeared I would > guess about 1% of the older programmers were interested in it -- using > [assembly] was "sissy stuff", and a real programmer would not stoop to > wasting machine capacity to do the assembly. > > Yes! Programmers wanted no part of it, though when pressed they had to > admit their old methods used more machine time in locating and fixing up > errors than the [assembler] ever used. One of the main complaints was whe= n > using a symbolic system you do not know where anything was in storage -- > though in the early days we supplied a mapping of symbolic to actual > storage, and believe it or not they later lovingly pored over such sheets > rather than realize they did not need to know that information if they > stuck to operating within the system -- no! When correcting errors they > preferred to do it in absolute binary. > > FORTRAN was proposed by Backus and friends, and again was opposed by > almost all programmers. First, it was said it could not be done. Second, = if > it could be done, it would be too wasteful of machine time and capacity. > Third, even if it did work, no respectable programmer would use it -- it > was only for sissies! > > > John von Neumann's reaction to assembly language and Fortran > John A.N. Lee, Virginia Polytechnical Institute > > John von Neumann, when he first heard about FORTRAN in 1954, was > unimpressed and asked "why would you want more than machine language?" On= e > of von Neumann's students at Princeton recalled that graduate students we= re > being used to hand assemble programs into binary for their early machine. > This student took time out to build an assembler, but when von Neumann > found out about it he was very angry, saying that it was a waste of a > valuable scientific computing instrument to use it to do clerical > work.[/quote] > > If is true that a real programmer would not stoop to wasting machine > capacity to do the assembly, is an unfortunate fact the real programmers = do > use to wasting machine capacity to do the assembly, compilers... > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAK_6Rwf1-8Eq7PtKwBqT%2BFFaRir2Qw7f%2BzhThxHi3a1zd7oGLQ>