Content deleted Content added
Peter Flass (talk | contribs) |
→DOS vs OS?: summary |
||
Line 267:
Appendix I.
<br>[[User:Peter Flass|Peter Flass]] ([[User talk:Peter Flass|talk]]) 13:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
:Assembler D was much more sophisticated than BAL. It was mostly upward compatible, although it did drop a few things. :Assemblers E and F were the same code base, differing in how they were link edited, and were more sophisticated than but upward compatible with D. I don't know whether D shared any code with E and F. All three had multiple phases. Assembler G was Assembler F with enhancements from the University of Waterloo.
:Assembler XF was mostly upward compatible with F, had some extensions to the macro language and had the same phase structure; I'm confidant that it started from the same code base as F.
:Assembler H was a completely new assembler with enhanced macro facilities. It was mostly compatible with F and, later, with XF. Assembler H V2 and HLASM started from the H code base.
:The article should go into this in more detail, absent the conjecture about the XF code base. -- [[User:Chatul|Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul]] ([[User talk:Chatul|talk]]) 13:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
| |||