Timeline for Relation between Machine code and Von Neumann architecture
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 2, 2016 at 10:23 | comment | added | Raphael | @AlexandreThebaldi What do you need abstraction relations for a timeline, then? | |
| Nov 2, 2016 at 10:00 | vote | accept | Alexandre Demelas | ||
| Nov 2, 2016 at 9:40 | comment | added | Alexandre Demelas | @Raphael Actually I'm not ordering all things in the world, just trying to create a timeline with origins of imperative languages, FYI. | |
| Nov 2, 2016 at 9:36 | comment | added | Raphael | @AlexandreThebaldi Not all things in the world can be ordered linearly. You wouldn't say "Mammals are an abstraction of apples", for instance. | |
| Nov 2, 2016 at 9:30 | comment | added | David Richerby | A machine code isn't an abstraction of the architecture: it's a set of instructions for the architecture. Beyond that, your statement looks fine. (By the way, "categorically wrong" means "absolutely, unarguably wrong"; I think you just mean that it's a category error, i.e., something that doesn't type-check.) | |
| Nov 2, 2016 at 9:28 | comment | added | Alexandre Demelas | Oh okay. My purpose (mentioned on above comment) with this question was to construct a phrase like: "We abstracted Von Neumann architecture to machine code, then to Assembly, then to high-level languages and beyond". So it's categorically wrong make this relation? | |
| Nov 2, 2016 at 9:20 | history | answered | David Richerby | CC BY-SA 3.0 |