Talk:High-level assembler

A VANDAL HAS DELETED ALL THE INFO Belgian man 19:43, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Seems okay now? Zuiram 09:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Lack of notability

IMHO this subject should be deleted, because the term "high level assembler" is not established. I think I'm an assembler expert. None of my 20 or so books contains the term "high level assembler", and on the internet I only find the vagaries of Randall Hide. Adding conditional compilation, macro's or facilities to more easily call external facilities (in higher level languages like C) are unsufficient ground. Especially not because it is hard to find a serious tool that doesn't allow for conditional compilation and/or macro's. Once there are macro's you can easily add facilities for external calls.

If the information here is to be salvaged, the subject should be renamed. Even so the information could better be distributed over subjects like "calling high level languages from assembler" . A good article would probably be dismissed as "original research". 80.100.243.19 (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right about the Hyde system not being a real high level assembler despite its name - it's clearly a programming language, modelled on C# or some other equivalent modern language. However the term most definitely was in common use in the 60's and 70's. I've added a reference link to Hamish Dewar's "HAL70" (the 70 refers to the Interdata minis, not the year) which was published in 1975. If you read the manual it is very clearly in the style as described in the article section. Dewar's HAL was relatively portable, and was also implemented for the ICL7502 editing station (by Dewar) as well as for the ICL 2900 series and the DEC KMC11 by others. 70.124.38.160 (talk) 05:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

PL/360

While PL/360 had features that the IBM D, F and XF assemblers lacked, it's lack of an equivalent to USING and its lack of macros left it arguably lower level than the assemblers bundled with the IBM S/360 and S/370 operating systems. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

ESPOL seems to be more than just an assembler

ESPOL seems to be more than just an assembler, even a "high-level" assembler; it does more than just "[provide] an ALGOL-like syntax around explicitly-specified Burroughs B5000 machine instructions" - it allows, for example, arbitrary high-level-language-style expressions, not just explicitly specified operand call and arithmetic instructions.

It's more of a system programming language, in that, while you can, at least with the B5xxx ESPOL, use POLISH to write machine-language instructions directly, and can make various machine-specific references, that's not the only kind of code you can put inside higher-language control flow constructs. Guy Harris (talk) 08:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)