Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.snarked.org!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: Martin Ward Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Languages from the 1950s Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 10:51:09 +0100 Organization: Compilers Central Lines: 20 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <20-05-005@comp.compilers> References: <20-03-030@comp.compilers> <20-05-003@comp.compilers> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="81263"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: history, architecture, comment Posted-Date: 13 May 2020 11:06:30 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com In-Reply-To: <20-05-003@comp.compilers> Content-Language: en-GB Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:2518 On 10/05/2020 01:46, John wrote: > It was an "optimizing" assembler in that it tried to place > instructions in locations on the 650's drum to minimize the > rotational delay. -John When I read this I thought "how quaint!". But then I remembered that with modern heavily pipelined CPU's, compilers also need to place instructions in the right order so that each instruction in the sequence is executed just as the hardware components that it needs become available, to minimise the pipeline delay. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. -- Martin Dr Martin Ward | Email: martin@gkc.org.uk | http://www.gkc.org.uk G.K.Chesterton site: http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc | Erdos number: 4 [It's remarkable how little modern software technology wasn't already done somewhere in the 1950s or 1960s. -John]