In some cases it was true binary/decimal/octal hexadecimal, e.g., mulipunching a card. In other cases there was a translation, e.g., Superzap.
The dead start panel on the CDC 6x00 machine was a set-and-forget. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Paul Gilmartin <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2024 12:59 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Assembler vs. assembly vs. machine code External Message: Use Caution On Tue, 31 Dec 2024 11:38:53 -0600, Joel Ewing \wrote: >Mainframe people are more likely to realize the distinction between >machine code and Assembler language because some of us have actually >been forced at some point in our life to write at the machine code >level, where you have to write in binary, octal, or hex. or decimal . Are those "machine code" or do some of them still require a translator? I believe the s/360 could be IPLed from a card deck, which might have been multi-punched on an 026. The bootstrap loaders for the CDC 6600 and the PDP-8 were entered from console switches. >numbers and manually assign memory addresses for instructions and >data. If you have worked with powerful macro assemblers with large >macro libraries, you also recognize that such Assemblers are much more >powerful that just a convenient shorthand for representing machine code >instructions. > >I think conflating machine code with Assembler code is more common in >the PC world. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
