[Novalug] [OT] The "real low level" of computers (it's not what you think) -- WAS: Packages v. ports v. source
Bryan J. Smith
b.j.smith at ieee.org
Mon Mar 29 14:13:02 EDT 2010
I explicitly prefaced it "anal engineering" standpoint. If you want to nitpick on
whether you want to agree with that or not, then that's your decision. I was only
noting that from an engineering design standpoint, "computer organization" or
"data architecture" is the preferred term. From a programmer standpoint, use
what you want -- although don't expect engineers to use the same. That's all.
Furthermore, the nomenclature of "Instruction Set Architecture" (ISA) has two
sides. There is the "programmer" side of that, and the "engineering" side of
that. The whole point of the ISA is so programmers do _not_ remotely need
to understand the "computer architecture" behind it. They only see the instruction
set, and that instruction set allows an interface into the architecture beyond their
level of education and exposure.
Again, the whole point of this analness is to expose people to the idea that
programmer's shouldn't care. They just need to know how to _effectively_
deal with ISAs, without having to understand the computer architecture. This is
why 2G languages are of no use to them. You can't do assembler without
understand the architecture. And yes, that means the "lower" stuff. Too many
programmers think in '70s ISA terms when they don't realize that hasn't existed
for a couple of decades now.
Everything else is argumentative and posturing. I already admitted I'm in the
minority on this. But we've seen many "developers" here complain about what
a "developer" and "system programmer" is, and I'm sure they are in the monority
as well. This is just me and my "angineering" pointing out why people also miss
my points. Same concept. Not a big deal. Take offense if you want, I haven't.
Seriously. My mistake.
P.S. My books in the software end of my EE read "computer organization" and
"data structures," not "computer architecture." Even my VHDL, Verilog and system
design courses didn't read "computer architecture" either. There are reasons why
engineers use different terms. That's all I was pointing out.
Just like developers nitpick over what a "developer" or "programmer" is. ;)
----- Original Message ----
From: "jecottrell3 at comcast.net" <jecottrell3 at comcast.net>
ISA? As in "Instruction Set Architecture"? Don't you mean
ISO? As in "Instruction Set Organization"?
P.S. I looked on Amazon for the book by C. Gordon Bell, Allen Newell Daniel P. Siewiorek.
It was called "Computer Structures: Prinicples and Examples"
I seriously doubt whether Chester would back Bryan's claim that "it's Computer Organization not Computer Architecture" given that he saw fit to use another word entirely.
More information about the Novalug