> >> Assembler is not really a "language" as it's own name imply

> This is quite true,

No. Not true at all :-).
Lack of generality doesn't make a language not a language - it just smakes
it a specialist one.
The thing which makes it very very sharp is what also makes it less
portable, and vice versa.
HLL's are to a variable extent machine dependent and the H'er the L the less
so. To achieve this the differences may need to be accomodated inside the
language where the user camn't see them than outside where the user can
twiddle the knobs. Assembler is the ultimate HLL, but all the exceptions are
carried in the user's brain rather than in the compiler writer's brain.

The ultimatenon-language is acually "above" assembler in position 0 - ie han
writing machine code - try it, you won't like it :-).
Long long long ago I spent a happy few years doing just that, as no
assembler (let alone compiler) was usefully available at an accessible
price. An interesting grounding in microprocessors was thereby provided, but
it's not something I'd ever care to do again. Fortunately the processor
used, the Motorola 6800, was *FAR* more amenable to this treatment as it
grouped bits in related fields adjacently rather than sprinkling them all
over the command word as some do, and it had a reasonably well ordered
instruction set. Doing the same thing with most other microprocessors would
be substantially harder. As it is I could probably still write some 6800
code from memory :-).


        Russell





-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist