[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Low-level vs. High-level programming (was My First Computer)
- Subject: Re: Low-level vs. High-level programming (was My First Computer)
- From: Richard Plinston <riplin@Azonic.co.nz>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:53:47 +1200
- Followup-to: comp.sys.cbm
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.cbm, comp.sys.apple2, rec.games.video.classic, comp.os.cpm
- Organization: Azonic Asociates
- References: <7a1fd8df.0301181540.30e19a40@posting.google.com> <dZvIa.52699$nx5.51384@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com> <Xns939FEBDA66869wildstar128hotmailco@216.168.3.44> <2OQIa.363$mS2.180@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com>
- User-agent: KNode/0.6.1
- Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.sys.cbm:58946 comp.sys.apple2:31629 rec.games.video.classic:59160 comp.os.cpm:13404
Randy McLaughlin wrote:
> The Eniac DID have a language - machine language.
Just because something can be programmed doesn't mean that it has a
'language'. The Babbage engine was programmed by changing cog wheels.
ENIAC (AFAIK) was programmed by wiring. Many analog computers were
'programmed' with dials and measurements.
There may be some notation as a mechanism for instructing the technicians
but this isn't instructions to the machine.