>From another perspective, we are just 'writing' data. The data (object code) are decoded by the hardware and executed by various nand gates, etc. So in that sense we are providing data to the hardware upon which the machine takes action and manipulates other data.
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Bill Fairchild <[email protected]> wrote: > When I am typing an Assembler instruction just prior to depressing the > "Enter" key to signify end-of-line, I am coming in direct physical contact > with hardware (plastic covers of the keys) that are being used, under the > control of software (an editor), which is reading my instructions and saving > them somewhere. Then later another piece of software runs on some different > hardware (mainframe), reads my instructions as data, assembles them, and > stores the result somewhere. Finally my instructions get a chance to run on > the mainframe, but even then it is being operated on by other software as > just data to be processed (the Initiator/Terminator, the loader, > Recovery/Termination, Job Entry Subsystem, and many other parts of the > operating system). But when my program executes, it is operating directly > with the mainframe hardware. So am I a hardware programmer or a software > programmer? Well, I don't build hardware. I am building software. But am I > programming the hardware o! r ! > the software? At one semantic level, I could be either. Am I building a > program for the hardware to run or for the software to run? > > If I were building a stand-alone operating system, then I might think of > myself as a hardware programmer. But even then, my program could not be put > into the correct place for it to take over complete control of the mainframe > hardware unless it were acted upon first by other software. > > Whatever. > > I like to think of myself as a software developer. I can live with the > shame. > > Bill Fairchild > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Tony Harminc > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 12:09 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: EDIT instruction > > On 30 August 2011 21:40, robin <[email protected]> wrote: >> From: "Tony Harminc" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, 31 August 2011 1:46 AM >> >>> On 30 August 2011 07:45, robin <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> No it isn't, because, for the reason given, namely, that IBM >>>> software programmers didn't want to use the instruction. >>> >>> Don't you mean "hardware programmers"? >> >> No. > > I write programs for the hardware to execute; I don't know what you do. > Software programmer makes as much sense as program programmer. > > Tony H. >
