On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 20:12:36 +0100, 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.
>
> ---druck

Two conflicting goals
a cpu only talks one language - machine code.
therefore any high level language needs either a compiler that translates
your source into machine code - & that can only be reliably reversed back
into Assembler.
Or an interpreter (which is in machine code) which reads each instruction
in the source & then executes the sequence of instructions needed. this
process takes time.
you idea of using "Ambiguous NOPS" to flag unnecessary information such
as parentheses would still incur a speed penalty as even a NOP takes some
time to execute.





--
Theory is gray, but the golden tree of life is green.
  -- Goethe

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05