Re: Does MSIL Qualify?
- From: randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 18 Apr 2005 05:59:19 -0700
Evenbit wrote:
>
> I bet most of us can agree that it involves explicite referrences to
> "machine" internals. In C, you don't normally make concrete mention
of
> stacks, registers, and flags -- in assembly you do.
:-)
Yet, when a product provides every one of the machine instruction,
access to all the registers, and, indeed, is capable on a machine
statement-by-statement basis of exactly replicating a product commonly
called an "assembler", people argue to their dying breath that this
product is not an assembler.
Again, the bottom line is that the definition of an assembler is used
to perpetuation political aims, not science.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Does MSIL Qualify?
- From: Betov
- Re: Does MSIL Qualify?
- References:
- Does MSIL Qualify?
- From: Evenbit
- Re: Does MSIL Qualify?
- From: Randall Hyde
- Re: Does MSIL Qualify?
- From: Evenbit
- Does MSIL Qualify?
- Prev by Date: Re: Linux, X, ld, gcc, linking, shared libraries and stuff
- Next by Date: Re: The Randall Hyde lies go on
- Previous by thread: Re: Does MSIL Qualify?
- Next by thread: Re: Does MSIL Qualify?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|