Exactly. For every level of abstraction, the abstractor is the high level and the abstractee is the lower level. Those aren’t real words perhaps, but you get what I’m saying. It’s all relative along the chain of abstraction.
Is it a chain though? I think it’s more of a branching network that (almost?) always is stopped at quantum physics and it’s theories or some form philosophy.
It’s not really abstraction though. It is more like syntactic sugar. In stead of 1000111011 you say ADD, but it is still the exact same thing. There is no functional, prgrammatical benefit of one over the other. It’s just that asm is readable by humans.
At least thats as far as I understand asm. I haven’t gone beyond NandToTetris
Wait until you learn about micro ops and processor internals. That somebody isn’t as wrong as you think.
There is no way ASM is high level
It’s a matter of perspective. To someone who’s job is to write the system which interprets ASM, ASM is high level
Exactly. For every level of abstraction, the abstractor is the high level and the abstractee is the lower level. Those aren’t real words perhaps, but you get what I’m saying. It’s all relative along the chain of abstraction.
Is it a chain though? I think it’s more of a branching network that (almost?) always is stopped at quantum physics and it’s theories or some form philosophy.
My mental model of it is a chain, yes. But you can define it however you like. It’s just steps in some direction.
Maybe a cake would suit someone the best.
It’s higher than machine code. It’s degrees of highness. Any abstraction technically makes it high level.
It’s not really abstraction though. It is more like syntactic sugar. In stead of 1000111011 you say ADD, but it is still the exact same thing. There is no functional, prgrammatical benefit of one over the other. It’s just that asm is readable by humans.
At least thats as far as I understand asm. I haven’t gone beyond NandToTetris