MB>> Btw, remember that C++ is a kind of high-level typed assembler with
 MB>> Simula classes and Ada generics. You don't completely understand it
 MB>> until you know more or less how to program in assembler.
 JdBP> [ The term is "assembly language", by the way.  "Assembler" is the 
 JdBP> thing that assembles, not the language itself.  ]
Oh, it's an old habit of saying "langage assembleur" instead of
"langage d'assemblage", the latter being the correct form but the
former being the 99% used form.
 JdBP> theoretical level I have to disagree with you.  C++ is nothing like 
 JdBP> assembly
 JdBP> language, either in structure or in syntax, and is most certainly not 
 JdBP> just a variant on it as you imply.
 JdBP> I'd argue that the reason that most people don't completely understand 
 JdBP> C++
 JdBP> until they know assembly language is not that they need to know 
 JdBP> assembly
 JdBP> language /per se/, but that they need to understand the basic CPU and 
 JdBP> memory architecture
I express myself much better in computer languages than natural
languages, even when talking about computers. I completely agree with
you.
 JdBP> machine, and only *partially* understanding the real one.  One doesn't 
 JdBP> need to know what the FISTP instruction does in order to write
 JdBP> C++ programs.
I don't think i ever used this one in assembly language. :-)
As you see, i'm not really a fan of FPU.
matju
--- Terminate 4.00/Pro
---------------