Talk:First-generation programming language
|Sources for development of this article may be located at|
I don't think this is right.
A little less recently, in the early to mid 80s, code-injection was often used to overcome certain limitations of programming languages like the interpretive QBasic. This language had no means of inserting assembler code or to link to libraries made by other languages. By using the BLOAD (Binary Load) instruction, one was able to inject a certain piece of machine instructions in memory and then execute it. The opposite instruction was BSAVE, with which any part of computer memory could be retrieved. By being highly unportable, this was a very dangerous way of coding. Any typing error could result in a crash, or even worse, damage to the video controller or other equipment.
1) BLOAD and BSAVE were part of AppleBasic not QBasic 2) Typing errors happened all the time on PCs, CP/M machines... It was standard. They generally handled it well by just dropping to assembly or something 3) The video controllers weren't capable of hurting the monitors. This was problem with higher end equipment not the PCs of the day.
1) The part about BLOAD and BSAVE commands is SOMEWHAT correct. It's not the way I did it. Actually, both AppleSoft BASIC and IBM (BASICA, GWBASIC, QBASIC, QuickBASIC, PDS BASIC 7, etc.) had the BLOAD and BSAVE commands. Another thing they had in common is that they were all written by Microsoft.
The comments about low-level code being dangerous is debatable in my opinion. We had no other way of getting the job done in those days. But most meaningful code that I wrote was written in C and Assembler, which wasn't any less "dangerous".
The comments about "danger" represent just one point of view that seems to be popular with some of the newer programmers that maybe weren't even born at the time.
2) By typing errors, I assume that the author means "typing errors by programmers". I am being charitable in saying so, but any programmer who doesn't test their code before releasing it isn't a very good programmer.
--Bill Buckels 20:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Programming language generations
Pursuing the suggestions to reorganize this material, I have created a page called Programming language generations, using this and additional material, as explained on its discussion page. If interested, please go there and make further improvements. Thanks CSProfBill (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
machine language is a lot more difficult to learn?
Sounds rather odd to me. Assembler is not terribly difficult to learn and I don't see why machine code should be. I can see how it would be difficult to understand a machine language program, given the cryptic opcodes and lack of structure, but it shouldn't take long to learn the language. It is really the fancy concepts of high level languages that take a lot of effort to learn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)