Originally Posted by Mario F.
Not if you're
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...cherCuster.jpg
Also I just finished writing an assignment in Microprogram. The ultimate programming language would basically be a one keyword instruction that is already programmed into the processor.
Last edited by indigo0086; 12-04-2006 at 08:54 AM.
> The ultimate programming language would basically be a one keyword instruction that is already programmed into the processor.
Hmm... then it's not really a programming language. Although the definition is blurred.
It would also not be a super programming language. Rather limited the poor thing.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
We would essentially have robots to do all the intermediate work. That or Deus Ex Machina.
There is only one super language that can do everything... assembly...
"The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore
I would agree, assembly. 10,000 lines of code for a 50 line C program (at least), but everything goes to assembly
Or build the JC-1 computer. JC stands for Jesse Custer
here's what a JC instruction would look like.
"Write The Matrix...then kill yourself;"
viola, we're all batteries.
Absolutely horrible exaggeration. Many assembly programmers can get damn near close to matching the size of C programs in terms of LOC. It's not that hard; compiler-implemented assembly however may somewhat induce this nebulous thought.10,000 lines of code for a 50 line C program (at least)
operating systems: mac os 10.6, debian 5.0, windows 7
editor: back to emacs because it's more awesomer!!
version control: git
website: http://0xff.ath.cx/~as/
True. It is. But I'm in the middle of a horribly ugly assembly program and I'm vengeful
Mad_guy, I think it was an exaggeration for effect, not fact.
