Schol-R-LEA wrote:
I'm going say that the question itself betrays a confusion of ideas.
@Schol-R-LEA
I asked the question because the DavidCooper said that is arguably wrong the following affirmation of Andrew Tanenbaum:
"The machine language programmer must always work with the numerical values of the addresses".
DavidCooper wrote:
Tanenbaum says that "The machine language programmer must always work with the numerical values of the addresses", and while that is arguably wrong, you could consider my system to be a partial assembler: my indexes hold the names of variables and routines, so when I call a routine, I type in the name of the routine rather than the jump distance to it, and when I want to load a value from or to a variable, I type in the name of the variable rather than its address. For almost everything else though, I use machine code numbers directly.
manhobby wrote:
Why Andrew Tanenbaum says that the machine language programmer must always work with the numerical values of the addresses?
Schol-R-LEA wrote:
I hope this makes more sense now,
@Schol-R-LEA
The DavidCooper use pure machine code programming or he use assembler and machine language?
Schol-R-LEA wrote:
but I have a feeling you will have a lot more questions for us on this.
@Schol-R-LEA
I have only more one question for you to end the topic.