Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #80241 > unrolled thread

Re: [OFF-TOPIC] It is true that is impossible write in binary code, the lowest level of programming that you can write is in hex code?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [OFF-TOPIC] It is true that is impossible write in binary code, the lowest level of programming that you can write is in hex code? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2014-11-04 21:30 -0500
    Re: [OFF-TOPIC] It is true that is impossible write in binary code, the lowest level of programming that you can write is in hex code? Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-11-05 15:05 +0000
      Re: [OFF-TOPIC] It is true that is impossible write in binary code, the lowest level of programming that you can write is in hex code? Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-11-06 02:21 +1100
    Re: [OFF-TOPIC] It is true that is impossible write in binary code, the lowest level of programming that you can write is in hex code? Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2014-11-05 15:38 +0000
      Re: [OFF-TOPIC] It is true that is impossible write in binary code, the lowest level of programming that you can write is in hex code? Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au> - 2014-11-06 09:27 +1100
      Re: [OFF-TOPIC] It is true that is impossible write in binary code, the lowest level of programming that you can write is in hex code? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2014-11-05 22:33 -0500
      RE: [OFF-TOPIC] It is true that is impossible write in binary code, the lowest level of programming that you can write is in hex code? "Clayton Kirkwood" <crk@godblessthe.us> - 2014-11-05 15:14 -0800
      Re: [OFF-TOPIC] It is true that is impossible write in binary code, the lowest level of programming that you can write is in hex code? William Ray Wing <wrw@mac.com> - 2014-11-06 09:19 -0500

#80241 — Re: [OFF-TOPIC] It is true that is impossible write in binary code, the lowest level of programming that you can write is in hex code?

On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 13:45:32 -0300, françai s <romapera15@gmail.com>
declaimed the following:

>I intend to write in lowest level of computer programming as a hobby.
>
>It is true that is impossible write in binary code, the lowest level
>of programming that you can write is in hex code?
>
>What is the lowest level of programming computers that you can write ?
>
>Is binary code?
>
>Is hex code?
>
>Is another machine code? Honestly do not know if it is true that there
>is another machine code beyond the binary and hex code.
>
>Is Assembly?

	Meaningless question -- it all relies upon HOW THE CODE GETS INTO
MEMORY.

	NOT TO MENTION: "binary" and "hex" are just notations. They both
represent a set of bits, but hex uses one character to encode 4 bits while
binary needs one character for each bit.

	0xA5 is the SAME as '101001010'b (note: the notation differs with
whatever system you use to enter them -- 0xA5 in C is 16#A5# in Ada, and
'A5'h in some obsolete systems..

	If you have an old system with front-panel toggle switches, you set the
switches for binary values, and then push the "enter" switch.

	"machine code" typically implies an instruction set specific to that
machine... ALL computers operate in BINARY logic (a bit only holds 0 or 1).
How you get those bits into the computer is irrelevant.
-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
    wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#80271

On 2014-11-05, Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>  "machine code" typically implies an instruction set specific
> to that machine... ALL computers operate in BINARY logic (a bit only
> holds 0 or 1). How you get those bits into the computer is
> irrelevant.

Just to muddy the water...

_Most_ parts of most computers operate in binary.  Portions of some
parts (e.g. some NAND flash) use ternary, quaternary, or octal.  IIRC,
four-state transistor cells are pretty common at the moment, but some
vendor(s) are working with 8-state cells.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! Hold the MAYO & pass
                                  at               the COSMIC AWARENESS ...
                              gmail.com            

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80273

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:05 AM, Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 2014-11-05, Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>  "machine code" typically implies an instruction set specific
>> to that machine... ALL computers operate in BINARY logic (a bit only
>> holds 0 or 1). How you get those bits into the computer is
>> irrelevant.
>
> Just to muddy the water...
>
> _Most_ parts of most computers operate in binary.  Portions of some
> parts (e.g. some NAND flash) use ternary, quaternary, or octal.  IIRC,
> four-state transistor cells are pretty common at the moment, but some
> vendor(s) are working with 8-state cells.

Dragging this back to some semblance of reality: Whenever you write
code, you're writing code for some kind of executor. No level of
abstraction higher or lower truly matters; you just write to the level
you're aiming at, and everything else is of educational curiosity
only. I might write code for a Python executor one day, and for a C
executor another, and then another day maybe I'm writing LaTeX code -
that's a language, too, of a sort. If I build my own framework layer
above the base executor, that's just added another type of executor to
the pool, and now I can target that. Everything's abstractions around
something, and *it doesn't matter*, because anyone can fiddle with any
layer without disturbing the others. Those eight-state cells can be
dropped in without breaking my Python code - that's the whole point of
abstractions. They're doing their job.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80275

On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 21:30:06 -0500, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:

> 	If you have an old system with front-panel toggle switches, you 
set the
> switches for binary values, and then push the "enter" switch.

You've booted a PDP-8 then ;)

-- 
Denis McMahon, denismfmcmahon@gmail.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80296

On 05Nov2014 15:38, Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 21:30:06 -0500, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
>>       If you have an old system with front-panel toggle switches, you
>set the
>> switches for binary values, and then push the "enter" switch.
>
>You've booted a PDP-8 then ;)

Not me, but I have booted a PDP-11. Same deal:-)

Our kernels had a patch in the idle loop that updated a specific memory address 
with a regularly changing bit pattern (therefore the change rate slowed down 
when the machine was busy). Post boot we'd set the memory view toggle swithces 
to that address and be treated to a beautiful Cylon-like shuttling pattern of 
red lights indiciating business.

Cheers,
Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au>

The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree, is by
accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals. We cause
accidents.      - Nathaniel Borenstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80306

On Wed, 5 Nov 2014 15:38:09 +0000 (UTC), Denis McMahon
<denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> declaimed the following:

>On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 21:30:06 -0500, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
>
>> 	If you have an old system with front-panel toggle switches, you 
>set the
>> switches for binary values, and then push the "enter" switch.
>
>You've booted a PDP-8 then ;)

	No... I was actually visualizing an Altair or IMSAI (though I've never
touched them either).
-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
    wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80319

Yeah, the 11 was mesmerizing. You didn't need no stinkin' program to see how
busy the system was, you just checked the lights. You could really tell when
somebody was compiling or link/loading. As I've done many times since those
days, I am amazed how many users could be using the system simultaneously
(yes, general editing, but still...) and it wasn't a quick machine by any
stretch. We had a whopping 384K memory and big multi-platter disks with a
whopping 65MB. Still think in terms of PIP sometimes...

Clayton

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Python-list [mailto:python-list-
>bounces+crk=godblessthe.us@python.org] On Behalf Of Cameron Simpson
>Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 2:28 PM
>To: python-list@python.org
>Subject: Re: [OFF-TOPIC] It is true that is impossible write in binary
>code, the lowest level of programming that you can write is in hex code?
>
>On 05Nov2014 15:38, Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 21:30:06 -0500, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
>>>       If you have an old system with front-panel toggle switches, you
>>set the
>>> switches for binary values, and then push the "enter" switch.
>>
>>You've booted a PDP-8 then ;)
>
>Not me, but I have booted a PDP-11. Same deal:-)
>
>Our kernels had a patch in the idle loop that updated a specific memory
>address with a regularly changing bit pattern (therefore the change rate
>slowed down when the machine was busy). Post boot we'd set the memory
>view toggle swithces to that address and be treated to a beautiful
>Cylon-like shuttling pattern of red lights indiciating business.
>
>Cheers,
>Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au>
>
>The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree,
>is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals.
>We cause
>accidents.      - Nathaniel Borenstein
>--
>https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#80335

> On Nov 5, 2014, at 6:14 PM, Clayton Kirkwood <crk@godblessthe.us> wrote:
> 
> Yeah, the 11 was mesmerizing. You didn't need no stinkin' program to see how
> busy the system was, you just checked the lights. You could really tell when
> somebody was compiling or link/loading. As I've done many times since those
> days, I am amazed how many users could be using the system simultaneously
> (yes, general editing, but still...) and it wasn't a quick machine by any
> stretch. We had a whopping 384K memory and big multi-platter disks with a
> whopping 65MB. Still think in terms of PIP sometimes…
> 

And TECO. . .

> Clayton

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web