17 Jan
2023
17 Jan
'23
6:19 p.m.
On Jan 17, 2023, at 12:05 PM, ben via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 2023-01-16 10:45 p.m., Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
Would not something like meta II, be better for that time frame. :)
I still find it hard that we have yet to a common meta language for computer operations.
Every computer just has to be different.
Addressing modes have been the same since the 1950's.
Addressing modes barely existed in the 1950s. The PDP11 introduced a bunch of new ones in
1970; the VAX a bunch more in 1978. "Since 1978" may be true, or at least
closer.
Some addressing modes went away, like the self-modifying "C" address mode of the
Electrologica X1 -- http://helloworldcollection.de/#Assembler%C2%A0(X1) . Good riddance,
actually, but it certainly was "interesting".
On a common metalanguage, there was an attempt to define such a thing, to allow software
to be encoded in a way that could still be understood centuries from now. I have a paper
about it somewhere but my search attempts are failing on me. I vaguely remember
"Rosetta" is part of the name of the paper, but that just gives me lots of false
matches.
paul
On
1/16/23 19:42, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote:
> It didn't fall for your trick question.
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023, Chuck Guzis
via cctalk wrote:
In fact, feed it the object code for a reasonably
compatible
architecture and ask it to perform translation to another architecture's
object code.
Certainly within the range of human capability.
How well does it do on something
"simple", and less esoteric, such as translating FORTRAN to BASIC?