0
According to Richard Hamming in the book The Art of Making Science and Engineering, page 26, one of the main complaints of the 1°generation machine code programmers who did not accept the Assembly was that you never know where the Assembly puts things.
The original of the statement I mentioned above says (emphasis added):
Finally, a more complete, and more Useful, Symbolic Assembly Program(SAP) was devised-after more years than you are apt to Believe During which Most programmers continued their heroic Absolute Binary Programming. At the time SAP first appeared I would Guess about 1% of the Older programmers Were interested in it-using SAP was "Sissy Stuff", and a real programmers 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 SAP program Ever used. One of the main complaints was when 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.
reference: http://worrydream.com/refs/Hamming-TheArtOfDoingScienceAndEngineering.pdf
I did not understand why 1% of programmers who encoded in machine code who did not accept Assembly later accepted Assembly.
If it’s not too much to ask, please someone translate the English text of Richard Hamming that I quoted above.
I asked the question based on the following part: One of the main complaints was when using a Symbolic system you do not know Where Anything was in Storage.
One of the main complaints was that those who use a symbolic system do not know where everything is put in memory.'
I did not understand why machine code programmers complained about Assembly and also did not understand why 1% of machine code programmers who believed that Assembly was a heresy changed their mind about Assembly.
All machine code programmers who complained about Assembly have changed their mind about Assembly?
The question sounds good but maybe it needs more context. People already think it is unclear. I don’t know if that’s the case, maybe because it’s unclear where you’re going with this. But I think not letting it is an exaggerated term, I think it only makes it a little difficult.
– Maniero
- La question?
– Renan Gomes
bigown, I asked the question based on the following part: One of the main complaints was when using a Symbolic system you do not know Where Anything was in Storage. One of the main complaints was using a symbolic system that you don’t know where everything was in storage.
– français
I won’t vote to close because it may be because I don’t understand the subject but I couldn’t understand what it is. It seems to speak in Assembly like it’s something unique that it’s not usually. So maybe it’s something that I have no idea what it is. And yet I think the premise of the question is wrong, but it may be my fault.
– Maniero
You want to know what exactly? try to simplify the question, are you trying to solve any particular problem by analyzing the structure of some source or are you discussing a design/architecture problem of a chair that you’re paying for? Is vacant ...
– Intruso
I think the problem in formulating the question is that he mistranslated what is written, or maybe his "Portuguese" is different from the majority here... What I understood is that he did not understand why there are machine programmers who have a complaint about Assembly, but it is not clear why and he wants to know how it works and why of this "fame" - I think I left more confused than the question
– Guilherme Nascimento