Wizard1988

Assembly is not based on 1s and 0s

hush

> Most programming languages are turing complete, if that's what you're saying.

I’m stating that there is a theory that concludes that for a supposed language to be classified as a language it has to be at the computational equivalent of a Turing machine.

Mad_guy

Assembly is the deliniated form of a processors native opcodes; some think of the instructions as 'macros' in a sense and others just think of them in terms of the correlation between the instruction and the emitted machine code the assembler produces (i.e. the correlation between the "add to accumulator" instruction and "0x12".) What it's based on is largely irrelivant in this situation, it has nothing to do with if or if not it is or is not something. C was based on B. Delphi was based on Pascal. Modern computers are still (largely) based on the von neumann architecture. Doesn't make much of an arguement to say that "[x] isn't [y] because it's based on [z]."

IOW, that language has to be Turing Complete to be considered a language.

__________________
os: mac os 10.5.4
revision control: git
editor: emacs

site

Jimbo

Off topic: That scale seems a little easy to score on...

DaWei

What does that mean? The whole dam' machine is based on 1s and 0s. Bare-bones assembly language is a one-to-one mapping between mnemonics and the binary code that implements the instruction. Some assemblers provide higher level constructs such as IFs. Macro assemblers provide a macro facility which can be useful in larger projects with multiple coders assigned. The machine code (interpretation of the mnemonics) might not control the operation on its own, in detail. It might cause a series of micro-code instructions to be executed in the appropriate order. Implementing logical processes is not always a matter of merely combining 1s and 0s. Timing is often an issue. The hardware devices have setup and hold times which must be met for the operation to be reliable. Some devices require the application of the signals in an appropriate sequence. Chit like that.

At the OP -- your friend is ignorant, at a minimum. We'll hope it's mere ignorance as opposed to stupidity. Should he decide to visit the forum, remind him to read the faq/rules first, in order to get a feel for the community and its culture. Anything less is, at best, thoughtless. At worst, it's a sign of a spoiled person, or a person who thinks they're too valuable to have to waste their time when they're in a hurry to get free help. I bring this up for a point: Stuff like that pisses me off much worse than a poster stating that I'm an asshole (since it's a true statement).

__________________
Abstraction doesn't make it impossible to write bad code; it makes it possible to write superior code.
Contributor's Corner: Grumpy on C++ Exceptions DaWei on Pointers

bivhitscar

Bloody hell, that seemed far too easy

__________________
it's ironic considerate rarity patron of love higher knowledge engulfs me...

Wizard1988

Based was the appropriate word. If you wrote a bunch of 1s and 0s which were some sort of a program you wouldn't call that assembly language.

DaWei

In a sense you're correct, you would call it machine language, for which assembler provides handy mnemonics. 001111100000001 means to put the value, 1, in the A register of a Z-80. LD A,1 is somewhat more productive, though there's very little abstraction involved. Nevertheless, the whole process, regardless of language, is a process of solving problems by manipulating binary values (1s and 0s, trues and falses, whatever).

__________________
Abstraction doesn't make it impossible to write bad code; it makes it possible to write superior code.
Contributor's Corner: Grumpy on C++ Exceptions DaWei on Pointers

bivhitscar

>001111100000001 means to put the value, 1, in the A register of a Z-80.

Please tell me you knew that by heart. :p

__________________
it's ironic considerate rarity patron of love higher knowledge engulfs me...

Jimbo

I know this one by heart (MIPS32):
Ok, maybe that's not the same... :p