> On Jan 17, 2023, at 12:05 PM, ben via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
> On 2023-01-16 10:45 p.m., Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
>>> 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?
>
> 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
