[Chicago] Question about Machine Language.

[Joshua Herman]

Many high frequency traders will go from a prototype in python / R / matlab
and then tell someone to code it in assembler and or machine code and do
hand optimization. There are people that code in machine code when you want
really high performant systems that you can't waste a clock cycle. Also
embedded development can use machine code. Also its very useful to
bootstrap operating systems in fact there is a way to code inline assembly
in C and also you can code inline assembler for x86-64 with this project.
https://github.com/Maratyszcza/PeachPy The main reason people don't code in
assembler is usability. The whole point of programming languages are an
attempt to make creating software easier or faster for the developer.

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 6:06 PM JS Irick <hundredpercentjuice at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Beautiful, Phil.
>
> Thanks for sharing.
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Robare, Phillip (TEKSystems) <
> proba at allstate.com> wrote:
>
>> My favorite story about programming in the ‘50s (and why we don’t do it
>> that way today) is “The Story of Mel” (
>> http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/story-of-mel.html).  Unfortunately there
>> is so much knowledge that has become arcane since the story was first
>> posted in the ‘80s that you should check out “The Story of Mel explained” (
>> http://jamesseibel.com/blog/?p=109).
>>
>> This will give you a feeling about what ‘programming to the metal’ is and
>> how far above it we code today.
>>
>> Phil Robare
>> TEK Systems / Allstate QR&A
>> 847-667-0431
>> D2D 82-O
>>
>> From: Chicago [mailto:chicago-bounces+proba=allstate.com at python.org] On
>> Behalf Of Carl Karsten
>> Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 3:09 PM
>> To: The Chicago Python Users Group
>> Subject: Re: [Chicago] Question about Machine Language.
>>
>> two more directions this can go:
>>
>> Why don't we call just code in machine language?
>>
>> 1. It's really hard.
>>
>> 2. There are many CPUs, each have there own instruction sets. (think
>> languages.a)  So code written using 484 instructions won't run on a 386,
>> and code written for a 386 won't take advantage of 486 features.   And
>> running on an ARM chip is right out.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Naomi Ceder <naomi.ceder at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 7 December 2015 at 13:57, Lewit, Douglas <d-lewit at neiu.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi everyone,
>> >>
>> >> I was reading an article on the web about how all programming
>> languages are "Turing complete".  I believe that basically means that all
>> programming languages are able to communicate with the computer's CPU using
>> the binary codes of machine language.
>> >
>> >
>> > Uh, that's not actually what "Turing Complete" means...  It doesn't
>>  have anything to do with binary or machine language... from Wikipedia (
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness):
>> >
>> > "To show that something is Turing complete, it is enough to show that
>> it can be used to simulate some Turing complete system. For example, an
>> imperative language is Turing complete if it has conditional branching
>> (e.g., "if" and "goto" statements, or a "branch if zero" instruction. See
>> OISC) and the ability to change an arbitrary amount ofmemory locations
>> (e.g., the ability to maintain an arbitrary number of variables). Since
>> this is almost always the case, most (if not all) imperative languages are
>> Turing complete if the limitations of finite memory are ignored."
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Naomi
>> >
>> >> Okay then.... so why don't we get rid of C, C++, Java, Python, Ruby,
>> Perl, Ocaml, Haskell, C#, F#, etc, etc and why don't we call just code in
>> machine language?  Bear in mind that I'm asking this question from the
>> point of view of the Devil's Advocate because I know almost nothing about
>> machine language.  But it's an interesting question.  It's related to the
>> question, "Why don't we have one universal natural language?  Let's get rid
>> of English, French, Spanish, German, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic,
>> Hebrew, etc, etc, and replace them all with one universal language that
>> everyone understands".
>> >>
>> >> I'm interested in reading your thoughts and ideas.  Thanks.
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >>
>> >> Douglas.
>> >>
>> >> P.S.  Sorry to hear about the Django Study Group.  I thought Mark
>> Graves was very friendly and did a great job of demonstrating various web
>> applications using Python.
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Chicago mailing list
>> >> Chicago at python.org
>> >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Naomi Ceder
>> > https://plus.google.com/u/0/111396744045017339164/about
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Chicago mailing list
>> > Chicago at python.org
>> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Carl K
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chicago mailing list
>> Chicago at python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ====
> JS Irick
> 312-307-8904
> Consultant: truqua.com
> Coach: atlascrossfit.com
> Programmer: juicetux.com
> _______________________________________________
> Chicago mailing list
> Chicago at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/chicago/attachments/20151208/6b74d8e8/attachment-0001.html>