-=> Nightfox wrote to Boraxman <=-
Ni> @MSGID: <6186CB4C.3331.dove_dove-prg@digitaldistortionbbs.com>
Ni> @REPLY: <61863E0B.2745.dove-prg@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Ni> Re: C is the most efficient p
Ni> By: Boraxman to Digital Man on
Ni> Sat Nov 06 2021 07:33 pm
Bo> I wouldn't call Assembly a Language. There isn't really a language per so,
Bo> just mnemonics and instructions to the assembler itself. It is more a
Bo> system to assembly machine code, and the efficiency of assembly is heavily
Bo> dependent on the ability of the programmer.
Ni> I always thought assembly was a language, in that it consists of
Ni> statements you can use to control logic and program flow. Assembly has
Ni> a 'vocabulary' of keywords (or instructions) that make up the language.
Ni> But every CPU has its own assembly.
Ni> Nightfox
Ni>
Ni> ---
Ni> = Synchronet = Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
True, but with C, something like
for (int x = 0; x < 100; ++x) {
a*=x;
}
That code is defined by a language, a specification. What "for" and "int" mean
are defined by the language. The structure of the code is defined by the
language. That is to say, C is actually a set of rules, a formal language that
then gets converted to machine code.
But with Assembler, there is not formal Assembler specification, no Assembly
keywords, etc, they are all implementation specific.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org
|
