Re: Settling an Argument - Assembly *IS* a Language, Right?
- From: "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 13:12:28 GMT
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article <446F20DE.64AD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
hanumizzle@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
......................
Nothing to do with human language.
On the contrary, it is a language devised by humans.
to be used by humans to give instructions to a computer.
How does that make it a human language?
By your reasoning, a machine language is a language devised by machines
to be used by machines to give instructions to a computer. I don't think
that's right.
Before any assemblers were developed, it was necessary
to put these instructions into the sequence of 0's and 1's
which formed the instructions, addresses, etc.
You know of any human languages that operate exclusively on 1s and 0s?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@xxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Settling an Argument - Assembly *IS* a Language, Right?
- From: Herman Rubin
- Re: Settling an Argument - Assembly *IS* a Language, Right?
- From: Ron Hardin
- Re: Settling an Argument - Assembly *IS* a Language, Right?
- References:
- Settling an Argument - Assembly *IS* a Language, Right?
- From: hanumizzle
- Re: Settling an Argument - Assembly *IS* a Language, Right?
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: Settling an Argument - Assembly *IS* a Language, Right?
- From: Herman Rubin
- Settling an Argument - Assembly *IS* a Language, Right?
- Prev by Date: Re: Settling an Argument - Assembly *IS* a Language, Right?
- Next by Date: Re: Long-range structural similarities across the Old World.
- Previous by thread: Re: Settling an Argument - Assembly *IS* a Language, Right?
- Next by thread: Re: Settling an Argument - Assembly *IS* a Language, Right?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|