From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] speaking of kenc Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 08:08:26 -0700 From: Tim Wiess In-Reply-To: <463EAB42.5050504@conducive.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5ed1707a-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 fascinating. could you please continue this thread off the list now? thanks. > Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >> On Sun, 2007-05-06 at 07:12 +0200, lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote: >>>> assembler is there because it is needed. if you are writing or porting >>>> a compiler and you dont have an assembler you will end up writing one >>>> anyway. >>> Assembler is there because the designers _make_ it necessary. >> >> I think I would agree with this point 100%. >> >> Thanks, >> Roman. >> >> > > Designers work in binary gate-array state tables. > > Not much choice until CPU go over to optical, and can *maybe* use UTF-8 directly > as I/O in color frequency coding as well as simple on/off states. > > Even then only at a hefty price. > > Until then, asm's mnemonics are easier for humans to work with than octal, hex, > or binary, and there isn't much to be done about that IF/AS/WHEN you absolutely, > positively, *have to* get down to the lowest possible layer and find a > binary-only animal at that layer. > > Fortunately, that 'have to' is 'damn seldom' thanks to a wide variety of > toolsets, and those who do it often are no more fussed about doing it than > having a different brand of beer now and then. > > Build a CPU that 'needs no assembler' and the first thing that happens is some > contrarian will write one for it *anyway*. And/OR port forth to it. > > And they will be used. But never 'forced'. > > That because the second contrarian who arrives will port a 'C' compiler to it. > > Any of these can be labelled ugly or inelegant - but they are the tools that get > the job done faster than most other choices. > > And time - wall clock, CPU, or hours of our lives - is not just money. > > Time is the scarcest, and least 'renewable' resource any of us will ever have. > > So we must adapt to what we have while we invent better machines. > > When machines start to adapt to US, we should become very, very wary, 'coz they > will have become smarter than we are, and they will also have become either > certifiably insane to make the attempt or clever liars to fake it. > > Can't trust either of those to keep a beer keg cold... > > Choices, folks. Choices! > > Bill