Gareth's Downstairs Computer writes:
> On 23/04/2018 20:12, druck wrote:
>> On 22/04/2018 21:54, Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>>> On 22/04/2018 21:44, druck wrote:
>>>> On 22/04/2018 12:22, Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>>>>> For example, due to operator precedence, parentheses might
>>>>> prove to be unnecessary, but you'd be justifiably miffed
>>>>> if they disappeared from the source code, as source code
>>>>> has human understandabilty considerations, and so
>>>>> it becomes necessary to
>>>>> insert a special form of NOP in the compiled code to
>>>>> represent the parentheses; only one NOP for each pair.
>>>>
>>>> No, only the source needs such human readable information, it
>>>> should not appear in compiled code, or even in the output of hand
>>>> written assembler.
>>>
>>> Not wishing to be rude, but may I suggest that you read this
>>> thread from the top, for the discussion, in my terms at least,
>>> is for the source to be the compiled code!
>>
>> I have, and your intention makes no sense to me regardless of what
>> architecture it's on.
>
> "ListBack", the name I have somewhat too early coined, is intended to
> solve the worldwide problem of software support long after the sources
> and design notes have been lost, or to support obsolete equipment
> containing firmware for which no manufacture support is forthcoming.

You don’t need a new programming language for that, you need a way to
ensure that source code is conveyed with object code, and several
methods already exist. You might want to think about why (between them)
they aren’t already universal, despite being easier to adopt than entire
new programming language.

If you just want to invent a programming language, that can be a fun
exercise, but you might want to pick a better excuse l-)

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05