How was the first compiler written?
I heard about the chicken and the egg and bootstrapping. I have a few questions.
What wrote the first compiler that converted something into binary instructions?
Is assembly compiled or translated into binary instructions?
...I'd find it hard to believe they wrote a compiler in binary.
compiler-construction compiler-design machine-instruction
add a comment |
I heard about the chicken and the egg and bootstrapping. I have a few questions.
What wrote the first compiler that converted something into binary instructions?
Is assembly compiled or translated into binary instructions?
...I'd find it hard to believe they wrote a compiler in binary.
compiler-construction compiler-design machine-instruction
possible duplicate of When someone writes a new programming language, what do they write it IN?
– nawfal
Jul 21 '14 at 11:31
add a comment |
I heard about the chicken and the egg and bootstrapping. I have a few questions.
What wrote the first compiler that converted something into binary instructions?
Is assembly compiled or translated into binary instructions?
...I'd find it hard to believe they wrote a compiler in binary.
compiler-construction compiler-design machine-instruction
I heard about the chicken and the egg and bootstrapping. I have a few questions.
What wrote the first compiler that converted something into binary instructions?
Is assembly compiled or translated into binary instructions?
...I'd find it hard to believe they wrote a compiler in binary.
compiler-construction compiler-design machine-instruction
compiler-construction compiler-design machine-instruction
edited Jun 25 '14 at 19:11
Kara
3,936104152
3,936104152
asked Oct 31 '09 at 6:58
Shawn Mclean
28.5k79251383
28.5k79251383
possible duplicate of When someone writes a new programming language, what do they write it IN?
– nawfal
Jul 21 '14 at 11:31
add a comment |
possible duplicate of When someone writes a new programming language, what do they write it IN?
– nawfal
Jul 21 '14 at 11:31
possible duplicate of When someone writes a new programming language, what do they write it IN?
– nawfal
Jul 21 '14 at 11:31
possible duplicate of When someone writes a new programming language, what do they write it IN?
– nawfal
Jul 21 '14 at 11:31
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
Assembly instructions are (generally) a direct mapping to opcodes, which are (multi-)byte values of machine code that can be directly interpreted by the processor. It is quite possible to write a program in opcodes directly by looking them up from a table (such as this one for the 6039 microprocessor, for example) that lists them with the matching assembly instructions, and hand-determining memory addresses/offsets for things like jumps.
The first programs were done in exactly this fashion - hand-written opcodes.
However, most of the time it's simpler to use an assembler to "compile" assembly code, which automatically does these opcode lookups, as well as being helpful in computing addresses/offsets for named jump labels, et cetera.
The first assemblers were written by hand. Those assemblers could then be used to assemble more complicated assemblers, which could then be use to assemble compilers written for higher-level languages, and so on. This process of iteratively writing the tools to simplify the creation of the next set of tools is called (as mentioned by David Rabinowitz in his answer) bootstrapping.
17
My first computer was a Z80-based machine in whose ROM monitor I had to hand-assemble a bootstrap loader to bring up the basics of an operating system (CP/M) so I could assemble the rest of said operating system into a working system, complete with a disk-based bootstrap loader. Fun times. So yeah, you can hand-assemble just fine. It's slow and painful and error-prone (which is why we automated things) but it's possible.
– JUST MY correct OPINION
Apr 22 '10 at 11:09
The first link is broken.
– Luke Fisk-Lennon
Sep 16 '18 at 0:18
add a comment |
Please read about compiler bootstrapping and the history of compiler writing
The idea is to write a very simple compiler directly in machine code, use it to write a more sophisticated compiler, use the second one to build a third one and so on until you can have a full featured compiler.
add a comment |
Eggs long preceded chickens. The answer to most "chicken and the egg" problems is the same: evolution. Some people have trouble believing in biological evolution too, but disbelief is not an argument (google argumentum ad ignorantiam).
To directly answer your question: the first compiler was written (by a human) in an assembly language -- a program called an assembler would translate assembly language into binary; this is a much simpler process than compilation because assembly language is just a symbolic form of machine language that uses opcode names instead of numbers, represents addresses with symbols, and so on. Many subsequent compilers were written in an assembly language as well. But the first C compiler was a modified B compiler, which was written in B. The first B compiler was written in TMG. The TMG compiler used to compile that B compiler was written in PDP-7 assembly language.
19
Downvote, eh? Probably a Creationist.
– Jim Balter
May 26 '15 at 4:15
Or maybe jealousy? :)
– Mikayil Abdullayev
Aug 15 '17 at 7:42
add a comment |
Woz said in one of his public talks that when he started, he couldn't afford a compiler so he compiled to binary by hand on paper. If you want to see something even more wild, read about the conditions under which Bill Gates and Paul Allen wrote the BASIC for the Altair 8800.
Regarding "writing a computer in binary" -- take a step back from being a programmer and think about what the early computers were. High level stuff didn't yet exist -- you thought about everything in the low level because that's all it was. You had hardware that could do basic logic and arithmetic that you manipulate via machine code (which is just compiled assembly -- Amber explains why this part isn't hard to do by hand) and you wanted this hardware to perform certain mathematical feats. You didn't worry about the non-existent operating system, you just told the hardware (in assembly) how to manipulate the numbers you feed it. It was a just big calculator. The computer of today was built one abstraction at a time.
If you want to break down the barrier that keeps computers feeling like magic, I HIGHLY recommend reading CODE by Charles Petzold and/or The Elements of Computing Systems. With just a basic knowledge of programming, these wonderfully accessible books will have you understanding computers from top to bottom. Obviously, one can't get a comp. sci. or EE degree after just 2 books, but I can say as a self-taught programmer who missed out on the formal training: these books rocked my world!
2
Writing the Altair BASIC interpreter after making the sales pitch? Coding the bootstrapper on the plane ride to Albuquerque? That sounds kind of ridiculous. And fun.
– Ehtesh Choudhury
Aug 1 '11 at 2:17
2
@Shurane: ha! Those point are relevant too but to me the nitty-gritty of how they made the BASIC interpreter and how the group crammed it into the tiny space is a thing of beauty and astounding programming ability/hackery.
– Dinah
Aug 2 '11 at 0:55
add a comment |
What wrote the first compiler that converted something into binary instructions?
A human did. Read about the A-0 system:
In 1952, Grace Hopper completed her first compiler for Sperry, known as the A-0. The A-0 System was a set of instructions that could translate symbolic mathematical code into machine language. In producing A-0, she took all the subroutines she had been collecting over the years and put them on tape. Each routine was given a call number, so that it the machine could find it on the tape. "All I had to do was to write down a set of call numbers, let the computer find them on the tape, bring them over and do the additions. This was the first compiler," as described by Grace.
1
The link seems to be 404 right now, in any case, "Grace" above is Grace Hopper.
– ShiDoiSi
Sep 20 '10 at 16:50
1
I've heard that Hopper wrote the first compiler, but the description above it makes it sound more like a linker than a compiler. Still, good story. It's amazing to think there was a time when computer scientists were skeptical about the idea of compilers...
– Mark E. Haase
Dec 21 '12 at 20:32
1
@mehaase this is why it is called "compiler". it makes a compilation of routines, each of which is (potentially) written in machine language directly.
– Elazar
Jun 4 '13 at 21:37
@MarkE.Haase The people Hopper referred to here were applications engineers and scientists using computers to for specific calculation tasks; they were not "computer scientists". There was a handful of cyberneticists around in 1952, but I doubt that she spoke to any of those.
– Jim Balter
Oct 10 '18 at 4:26
add a comment |
The first programs were written in machine code (not assembly language) - actual numbers plugged into the computer memory using switches. We've come a long way...
Sometimes this still happens to a small extent - to patch small bits of code or create thunks. I recall punching in numbers into Basic strings that were then executed as small, fast subroutines on early micros. I also remember toggling switches on a PDP-11's front panel to enter a bootloader program into its memory for a university course.
These programs would sometimes be used to process text files to create other programs, and voila programming languages were created.
The question is about the first compiler, not the first programs in general, despite programs sometimes being compilers; the history of the two is not the same. (An analogy: the answer to the question of when the first animals appeared on the Earth is not the answer to the question of when the first cats appeared on the Earth, despite cats being animals.)
– Jim Balter
Jan 6 '17 at 14:55
add a comment |
protected by Ry-♦ Jun 25 '13 at 2:39
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Assembly instructions are (generally) a direct mapping to opcodes, which are (multi-)byte values of machine code that can be directly interpreted by the processor. It is quite possible to write a program in opcodes directly by looking them up from a table (such as this one for the 6039 microprocessor, for example) that lists them with the matching assembly instructions, and hand-determining memory addresses/offsets for things like jumps.
The first programs were done in exactly this fashion - hand-written opcodes.
However, most of the time it's simpler to use an assembler to "compile" assembly code, which automatically does these opcode lookups, as well as being helpful in computing addresses/offsets for named jump labels, et cetera.
The first assemblers were written by hand. Those assemblers could then be used to assemble more complicated assemblers, which could then be use to assemble compilers written for higher-level languages, and so on. This process of iteratively writing the tools to simplify the creation of the next set of tools is called (as mentioned by David Rabinowitz in his answer) bootstrapping.
17
My first computer was a Z80-based machine in whose ROM monitor I had to hand-assemble a bootstrap loader to bring up the basics of an operating system (CP/M) so I could assemble the rest of said operating system into a working system, complete with a disk-based bootstrap loader. Fun times. So yeah, you can hand-assemble just fine. It's slow and painful and error-prone (which is why we automated things) but it's possible.
– JUST MY correct OPINION
Apr 22 '10 at 11:09
The first link is broken.
– Luke Fisk-Lennon
Sep 16 '18 at 0:18
add a comment |
Assembly instructions are (generally) a direct mapping to opcodes, which are (multi-)byte values of machine code that can be directly interpreted by the processor. It is quite possible to write a program in opcodes directly by looking them up from a table (such as this one for the 6039 microprocessor, for example) that lists them with the matching assembly instructions, and hand-determining memory addresses/offsets for things like jumps.
The first programs were done in exactly this fashion - hand-written opcodes.
However, most of the time it's simpler to use an assembler to "compile" assembly code, which automatically does these opcode lookups, as well as being helpful in computing addresses/offsets for named jump labels, et cetera.
The first assemblers were written by hand. Those assemblers could then be used to assemble more complicated assemblers, which could then be use to assemble compilers written for higher-level languages, and so on. This process of iteratively writing the tools to simplify the creation of the next set of tools is called (as mentioned by David Rabinowitz in his answer) bootstrapping.
17
My first computer was a Z80-based machine in whose ROM monitor I had to hand-assemble a bootstrap loader to bring up the basics of an operating system (CP/M) so I could assemble the rest of said operating system into a working system, complete with a disk-based bootstrap loader. Fun times. So yeah, you can hand-assemble just fine. It's slow and painful and error-prone (which is why we automated things) but it's possible.
– JUST MY correct OPINION
Apr 22 '10 at 11:09
The first link is broken.
– Luke Fisk-Lennon
Sep 16 '18 at 0:18
add a comment |
Assembly instructions are (generally) a direct mapping to opcodes, which are (multi-)byte values of machine code that can be directly interpreted by the processor. It is quite possible to write a program in opcodes directly by looking them up from a table (such as this one for the 6039 microprocessor, for example) that lists them with the matching assembly instructions, and hand-determining memory addresses/offsets for things like jumps.
The first programs were done in exactly this fashion - hand-written opcodes.
However, most of the time it's simpler to use an assembler to "compile" assembly code, which automatically does these opcode lookups, as well as being helpful in computing addresses/offsets for named jump labels, et cetera.
The first assemblers were written by hand. Those assemblers could then be used to assemble more complicated assemblers, which could then be use to assemble compilers written for higher-level languages, and so on. This process of iteratively writing the tools to simplify the creation of the next set of tools is called (as mentioned by David Rabinowitz in his answer) bootstrapping.
Assembly instructions are (generally) a direct mapping to opcodes, which are (multi-)byte values of machine code that can be directly interpreted by the processor. It is quite possible to write a program in opcodes directly by looking them up from a table (such as this one for the 6039 microprocessor, for example) that lists them with the matching assembly instructions, and hand-determining memory addresses/offsets for things like jumps.
The first programs were done in exactly this fashion - hand-written opcodes.
However, most of the time it's simpler to use an assembler to "compile" assembly code, which automatically does these opcode lookups, as well as being helpful in computing addresses/offsets for named jump labels, et cetera.
The first assemblers were written by hand. Those assemblers could then be used to assemble more complicated assemblers, which could then be use to assemble compilers written for higher-level languages, and so on. This process of iteratively writing the tools to simplify the creation of the next set of tools is called (as mentioned by David Rabinowitz in his answer) bootstrapping.
answered Oct 31 '09 at 7:02
Amber
348k60521483
348k60521483
17
My first computer was a Z80-based machine in whose ROM monitor I had to hand-assemble a bootstrap loader to bring up the basics of an operating system (CP/M) so I could assemble the rest of said operating system into a working system, complete with a disk-based bootstrap loader. Fun times. So yeah, you can hand-assemble just fine. It's slow and painful and error-prone (which is why we automated things) but it's possible.
– JUST MY correct OPINION
Apr 22 '10 at 11:09
The first link is broken.
– Luke Fisk-Lennon
Sep 16 '18 at 0:18
add a comment |
17
My first computer was a Z80-based machine in whose ROM monitor I had to hand-assemble a bootstrap loader to bring up the basics of an operating system (CP/M) so I could assemble the rest of said operating system into a working system, complete with a disk-based bootstrap loader. Fun times. So yeah, you can hand-assemble just fine. It's slow and painful and error-prone (which is why we automated things) but it's possible.
– JUST MY correct OPINION
Apr 22 '10 at 11:09
The first link is broken.
– Luke Fisk-Lennon
Sep 16 '18 at 0:18
17
17
My first computer was a Z80-based machine in whose ROM monitor I had to hand-assemble a bootstrap loader to bring up the basics of an operating system (CP/M) so I could assemble the rest of said operating system into a working system, complete with a disk-based bootstrap loader. Fun times. So yeah, you can hand-assemble just fine. It's slow and painful and error-prone (which is why we automated things) but it's possible.
– JUST MY correct OPINION
Apr 22 '10 at 11:09
My first computer was a Z80-based machine in whose ROM monitor I had to hand-assemble a bootstrap loader to bring up the basics of an operating system (CP/M) so I could assemble the rest of said operating system into a working system, complete with a disk-based bootstrap loader. Fun times. So yeah, you can hand-assemble just fine. It's slow and painful and error-prone (which is why we automated things) but it's possible.
– JUST MY correct OPINION
Apr 22 '10 at 11:09
The first link is broken.
– Luke Fisk-Lennon
Sep 16 '18 at 0:18
The first link is broken.
– Luke Fisk-Lennon
Sep 16 '18 at 0:18
add a comment |
Please read about compiler bootstrapping and the history of compiler writing
The idea is to write a very simple compiler directly in machine code, use it to write a more sophisticated compiler, use the second one to build a third one and so on until you can have a full featured compiler.
add a comment |
Please read about compiler bootstrapping and the history of compiler writing
The idea is to write a very simple compiler directly in machine code, use it to write a more sophisticated compiler, use the second one to build a third one and so on until you can have a full featured compiler.
add a comment |
Please read about compiler bootstrapping and the history of compiler writing
The idea is to write a very simple compiler directly in machine code, use it to write a more sophisticated compiler, use the second one to build a third one and so on until you can have a full featured compiler.
Please read about compiler bootstrapping and the history of compiler writing
The idea is to write a very simple compiler directly in machine code, use it to write a more sophisticated compiler, use the second one to build a third one and so on until you can have a full featured compiler.
answered Oct 31 '09 at 7:02
David Rabinowitz
22.5k1278114
22.5k1278114
add a comment |
add a comment |
Eggs long preceded chickens. The answer to most "chicken and the egg" problems is the same: evolution. Some people have trouble believing in biological evolution too, but disbelief is not an argument (google argumentum ad ignorantiam).
To directly answer your question: the first compiler was written (by a human) in an assembly language -- a program called an assembler would translate assembly language into binary; this is a much simpler process than compilation because assembly language is just a symbolic form of machine language that uses opcode names instead of numbers, represents addresses with symbols, and so on. Many subsequent compilers were written in an assembly language as well. But the first C compiler was a modified B compiler, which was written in B. The first B compiler was written in TMG. The TMG compiler used to compile that B compiler was written in PDP-7 assembly language.
19
Downvote, eh? Probably a Creationist.
– Jim Balter
May 26 '15 at 4:15
Or maybe jealousy? :)
– Mikayil Abdullayev
Aug 15 '17 at 7:42
add a comment |
Eggs long preceded chickens. The answer to most "chicken and the egg" problems is the same: evolution. Some people have trouble believing in biological evolution too, but disbelief is not an argument (google argumentum ad ignorantiam).
To directly answer your question: the first compiler was written (by a human) in an assembly language -- a program called an assembler would translate assembly language into binary; this is a much simpler process than compilation because assembly language is just a symbolic form of machine language that uses opcode names instead of numbers, represents addresses with symbols, and so on. Many subsequent compilers were written in an assembly language as well. But the first C compiler was a modified B compiler, which was written in B. The first B compiler was written in TMG. The TMG compiler used to compile that B compiler was written in PDP-7 assembly language.
19
Downvote, eh? Probably a Creationist.
– Jim Balter
May 26 '15 at 4:15
Or maybe jealousy? :)
– Mikayil Abdullayev
Aug 15 '17 at 7:42
add a comment |
Eggs long preceded chickens. The answer to most "chicken and the egg" problems is the same: evolution. Some people have trouble believing in biological evolution too, but disbelief is not an argument (google argumentum ad ignorantiam).
To directly answer your question: the first compiler was written (by a human) in an assembly language -- a program called an assembler would translate assembly language into binary; this is a much simpler process than compilation because assembly language is just a symbolic form of machine language that uses opcode names instead of numbers, represents addresses with symbols, and so on. Many subsequent compilers were written in an assembly language as well. But the first C compiler was a modified B compiler, which was written in B. The first B compiler was written in TMG. The TMG compiler used to compile that B compiler was written in PDP-7 assembly language.
Eggs long preceded chickens. The answer to most "chicken and the egg" problems is the same: evolution. Some people have trouble believing in biological evolution too, but disbelief is not an argument (google argumentum ad ignorantiam).
To directly answer your question: the first compiler was written (by a human) in an assembly language -- a program called an assembler would translate assembly language into binary; this is a much simpler process than compilation because assembly language is just a symbolic form of machine language that uses opcode names instead of numbers, represents addresses with symbols, and so on. Many subsequent compilers were written in an assembly language as well. But the first C compiler was a modified B compiler, which was written in B. The first B compiler was written in TMG. The TMG compiler used to compile that B compiler was written in PDP-7 assembly language.
edited Jun 17 '15 at 11:41
answered Feb 7 '11 at 22:21
Jim Balter
13.3k12853
13.3k12853
19
Downvote, eh? Probably a Creationist.
– Jim Balter
May 26 '15 at 4:15
Or maybe jealousy? :)
– Mikayil Abdullayev
Aug 15 '17 at 7:42
add a comment |
19
Downvote, eh? Probably a Creationist.
– Jim Balter
May 26 '15 at 4:15
Or maybe jealousy? :)
– Mikayil Abdullayev
Aug 15 '17 at 7:42
19
19
Downvote, eh? Probably a Creationist.
– Jim Balter
May 26 '15 at 4:15
Downvote, eh? Probably a Creationist.
– Jim Balter
May 26 '15 at 4:15
Or maybe jealousy? :)
– Mikayil Abdullayev
Aug 15 '17 at 7:42
Or maybe jealousy? :)
– Mikayil Abdullayev
Aug 15 '17 at 7:42
add a comment |
Woz said in one of his public talks that when he started, he couldn't afford a compiler so he compiled to binary by hand on paper. If you want to see something even more wild, read about the conditions under which Bill Gates and Paul Allen wrote the BASIC for the Altair 8800.
Regarding "writing a computer in binary" -- take a step back from being a programmer and think about what the early computers were. High level stuff didn't yet exist -- you thought about everything in the low level because that's all it was. You had hardware that could do basic logic and arithmetic that you manipulate via machine code (which is just compiled assembly -- Amber explains why this part isn't hard to do by hand) and you wanted this hardware to perform certain mathematical feats. You didn't worry about the non-existent operating system, you just told the hardware (in assembly) how to manipulate the numbers you feed it. It was a just big calculator. The computer of today was built one abstraction at a time.
If you want to break down the barrier that keeps computers feeling like magic, I HIGHLY recommend reading CODE by Charles Petzold and/or The Elements of Computing Systems. With just a basic knowledge of programming, these wonderfully accessible books will have you understanding computers from top to bottom. Obviously, one can't get a comp. sci. or EE degree after just 2 books, but I can say as a self-taught programmer who missed out on the formal training: these books rocked my world!
2
Writing the Altair BASIC interpreter after making the sales pitch? Coding the bootstrapper on the plane ride to Albuquerque? That sounds kind of ridiculous. And fun.
– Ehtesh Choudhury
Aug 1 '11 at 2:17
2
@Shurane: ha! Those point are relevant too but to me the nitty-gritty of how they made the BASIC interpreter and how the group crammed it into the tiny space is a thing of beauty and astounding programming ability/hackery.
– Dinah
Aug 2 '11 at 0:55
add a comment |
Woz said in one of his public talks that when he started, he couldn't afford a compiler so he compiled to binary by hand on paper. If you want to see something even more wild, read about the conditions under which Bill Gates and Paul Allen wrote the BASIC for the Altair 8800.
Regarding "writing a computer in binary" -- take a step back from being a programmer and think about what the early computers were. High level stuff didn't yet exist -- you thought about everything in the low level because that's all it was. You had hardware that could do basic logic and arithmetic that you manipulate via machine code (which is just compiled assembly -- Amber explains why this part isn't hard to do by hand) and you wanted this hardware to perform certain mathematical feats. You didn't worry about the non-existent operating system, you just told the hardware (in assembly) how to manipulate the numbers you feed it. It was a just big calculator. The computer of today was built one abstraction at a time.
If you want to break down the barrier that keeps computers feeling like magic, I HIGHLY recommend reading CODE by Charles Petzold and/or The Elements of Computing Systems. With just a basic knowledge of programming, these wonderfully accessible books will have you understanding computers from top to bottom. Obviously, one can't get a comp. sci. or EE degree after just 2 books, but I can say as a self-taught programmer who missed out on the formal training: these books rocked my world!
2
Writing the Altair BASIC interpreter after making the sales pitch? Coding the bootstrapper on the plane ride to Albuquerque? That sounds kind of ridiculous. And fun.
– Ehtesh Choudhury
Aug 1 '11 at 2:17
2
@Shurane: ha! Those point are relevant too but to me the nitty-gritty of how they made the BASIC interpreter and how the group crammed it into the tiny space is a thing of beauty and astounding programming ability/hackery.
– Dinah
Aug 2 '11 at 0:55
add a comment |
Woz said in one of his public talks that when he started, he couldn't afford a compiler so he compiled to binary by hand on paper. If you want to see something even more wild, read about the conditions under which Bill Gates and Paul Allen wrote the BASIC for the Altair 8800.
Regarding "writing a computer in binary" -- take a step back from being a programmer and think about what the early computers were. High level stuff didn't yet exist -- you thought about everything in the low level because that's all it was. You had hardware that could do basic logic and arithmetic that you manipulate via machine code (which is just compiled assembly -- Amber explains why this part isn't hard to do by hand) and you wanted this hardware to perform certain mathematical feats. You didn't worry about the non-existent operating system, you just told the hardware (in assembly) how to manipulate the numbers you feed it. It was a just big calculator. The computer of today was built one abstraction at a time.
If you want to break down the barrier that keeps computers feeling like magic, I HIGHLY recommend reading CODE by Charles Petzold and/or The Elements of Computing Systems. With just a basic knowledge of programming, these wonderfully accessible books will have you understanding computers from top to bottom. Obviously, one can't get a comp. sci. or EE degree after just 2 books, but I can say as a self-taught programmer who missed out on the formal training: these books rocked my world!
Woz said in one of his public talks that when he started, he couldn't afford a compiler so he compiled to binary by hand on paper. If you want to see something even more wild, read about the conditions under which Bill Gates and Paul Allen wrote the BASIC for the Altair 8800.
Regarding "writing a computer in binary" -- take a step back from being a programmer and think about what the early computers were. High level stuff didn't yet exist -- you thought about everything in the low level because that's all it was. You had hardware that could do basic logic and arithmetic that you manipulate via machine code (which is just compiled assembly -- Amber explains why this part isn't hard to do by hand) and you wanted this hardware to perform certain mathematical feats. You didn't worry about the non-existent operating system, you just told the hardware (in assembly) how to manipulate the numbers you feed it. It was a just big calculator. The computer of today was built one abstraction at a time.
If you want to break down the barrier that keeps computers feeling like magic, I HIGHLY recommend reading CODE by Charles Petzold and/or The Elements of Computing Systems. With just a basic knowledge of programming, these wonderfully accessible books will have you understanding computers from top to bottom. Obviously, one can't get a comp. sci. or EE degree after just 2 books, but I can say as a self-taught programmer who missed out on the formal training: these books rocked my world!
answered Sep 20 '10 at 16:45
Dinah
25.6k28118139
25.6k28118139
2
Writing the Altair BASIC interpreter after making the sales pitch? Coding the bootstrapper on the plane ride to Albuquerque? That sounds kind of ridiculous. And fun.
– Ehtesh Choudhury
Aug 1 '11 at 2:17
2
@Shurane: ha! Those point are relevant too but to me the nitty-gritty of how they made the BASIC interpreter and how the group crammed it into the tiny space is a thing of beauty and astounding programming ability/hackery.
– Dinah
Aug 2 '11 at 0:55
add a comment |
2
Writing the Altair BASIC interpreter after making the sales pitch? Coding the bootstrapper on the plane ride to Albuquerque? That sounds kind of ridiculous. And fun.
– Ehtesh Choudhury
Aug 1 '11 at 2:17
2
@Shurane: ha! Those point are relevant too but to me the nitty-gritty of how they made the BASIC interpreter and how the group crammed it into the tiny space is a thing of beauty and astounding programming ability/hackery.
– Dinah
Aug 2 '11 at 0:55
2
2
Writing the Altair BASIC interpreter after making the sales pitch? Coding the bootstrapper on the plane ride to Albuquerque? That sounds kind of ridiculous. And fun.
– Ehtesh Choudhury
Aug 1 '11 at 2:17
Writing the Altair BASIC interpreter after making the sales pitch? Coding the bootstrapper on the plane ride to Albuquerque? That sounds kind of ridiculous. And fun.
– Ehtesh Choudhury
Aug 1 '11 at 2:17
2
2
@Shurane: ha! Those point are relevant too but to me the nitty-gritty of how they made the BASIC interpreter and how the group crammed it into the tiny space is a thing of beauty and astounding programming ability/hackery.
– Dinah
Aug 2 '11 at 0:55
@Shurane: ha! Those point are relevant too but to me the nitty-gritty of how they made the BASIC interpreter and how the group crammed it into the tiny space is a thing of beauty and astounding programming ability/hackery.
– Dinah
Aug 2 '11 at 0:55
add a comment |
What wrote the first compiler that converted something into binary instructions?
A human did. Read about the A-0 system:
In 1952, Grace Hopper completed her first compiler for Sperry, known as the A-0. The A-0 System was a set of instructions that could translate symbolic mathematical code into machine language. In producing A-0, she took all the subroutines she had been collecting over the years and put them on tape. Each routine was given a call number, so that it the machine could find it on the tape. "All I had to do was to write down a set of call numbers, let the computer find them on the tape, bring them over and do the additions. This was the first compiler," as described by Grace.
1
The link seems to be 404 right now, in any case, "Grace" above is Grace Hopper.
– ShiDoiSi
Sep 20 '10 at 16:50
1
I've heard that Hopper wrote the first compiler, but the description above it makes it sound more like a linker than a compiler. Still, good story. It's amazing to think there was a time when computer scientists were skeptical about the idea of compilers...
– Mark E. Haase
Dec 21 '12 at 20:32
1
@mehaase this is why it is called "compiler". it makes a compilation of routines, each of which is (potentially) written in machine language directly.
– Elazar
Jun 4 '13 at 21:37
@MarkE.Haase The people Hopper referred to here were applications engineers and scientists using computers to for specific calculation tasks; they were not "computer scientists". There was a handful of cyberneticists around in 1952, but I doubt that she spoke to any of those.
– Jim Balter
Oct 10 '18 at 4:26
add a comment |
What wrote the first compiler that converted something into binary instructions?
A human did. Read about the A-0 system:
In 1952, Grace Hopper completed her first compiler for Sperry, known as the A-0. The A-0 System was a set of instructions that could translate symbolic mathematical code into machine language. In producing A-0, she took all the subroutines she had been collecting over the years and put them on tape. Each routine was given a call number, so that it the machine could find it on the tape. "All I had to do was to write down a set of call numbers, let the computer find them on the tape, bring them over and do the additions. This was the first compiler," as described by Grace.
1
The link seems to be 404 right now, in any case, "Grace" above is Grace Hopper.
– ShiDoiSi
Sep 20 '10 at 16:50
1
I've heard that Hopper wrote the first compiler, but the description above it makes it sound more like a linker than a compiler. Still, good story. It's amazing to think there was a time when computer scientists were skeptical about the idea of compilers...
– Mark E. Haase
Dec 21 '12 at 20:32
1
@mehaase this is why it is called "compiler". it makes a compilation of routines, each of which is (potentially) written in machine language directly.
– Elazar
Jun 4 '13 at 21:37
@MarkE.Haase The people Hopper referred to here were applications engineers and scientists using computers to for specific calculation tasks; they were not "computer scientists". There was a handful of cyberneticists around in 1952, but I doubt that she spoke to any of those.
– Jim Balter
Oct 10 '18 at 4:26
add a comment |
What wrote the first compiler that converted something into binary instructions?
A human did. Read about the A-0 system:
In 1952, Grace Hopper completed her first compiler for Sperry, known as the A-0. The A-0 System was a set of instructions that could translate symbolic mathematical code into machine language. In producing A-0, she took all the subroutines she had been collecting over the years and put them on tape. Each routine was given a call number, so that it the machine could find it on the tape. "All I had to do was to write down a set of call numbers, let the computer find them on the tape, bring them over and do the additions. This was the first compiler," as described by Grace.
What wrote the first compiler that converted something into binary instructions?
A human did. Read about the A-0 system:
In 1952, Grace Hopper completed her first compiler for Sperry, known as the A-0. The A-0 System was a set of instructions that could translate symbolic mathematical code into machine language. In producing A-0, she took all the subroutines she had been collecting over the years and put them on tape. Each routine was given a call number, so that it the machine could find it on the tape. "All I had to do was to write down a set of call numbers, let the computer find them on the tape, bring them over and do the additions. This was the first compiler," as described by Grace.
edited Oct 10 '18 at 4:16
Jim Balter
13.3k12853
13.3k12853
answered Oct 31 '09 at 7:06
Sinan Ünür
107k15174310
107k15174310
1
The link seems to be 404 right now, in any case, "Grace" above is Grace Hopper.
– ShiDoiSi
Sep 20 '10 at 16:50
1
I've heard that Hopper wrote the first compiler, but the description above it makes it sound more like a linker than a compiler. Still, good story. It's amazing to think there was a time when computer scientists were skeptical about the idea of compilers...
– Mark E. Haase
Dec 21 '12 at 20:32
1
@mehaase this is why it is called "compiler". it makes a compilation of routines, each of which is (potentially) written in machine language directly.
– Elazar
Jun 4 '13 at 21:37
@MarkE.Haase The people Hopper referred to here were applications engineers and scientists using computers to for specific calculation tasks; they were not "computer scientists". There was a handful of cyberneticists around in 1952, but I doubt that she spoke to any of those.
– Jim Balter
Oct 10 '18 at 4:26
add a comment |
1
The link seems to be 404 right now, in any case, "Grace" above is Grace Hopper.
– ShiDoiSi
Sep 20 '10 at 16:50
1
I've heard that Hopper wrote the first compiler, but the description above it makes it sound more like a linker than a compiler. Still, good story. It's amazing to think there was a time when computer scientists were skeptical about the idea of compilers...
– Mark E. Haase
Dec 21 '12 at 20:32
1
@mehaase this is why it is called "compiler". it makes a compilation of routines, each of which is (potentially) written in machine language directly.
– Elazar
Jun 4 '13 at 21:37
@MarkE.Haase The people Hopper referred to here were applications engineers and scientists using computers to for specific calculation tasks; they were not "computer scientists". There was a handful of cyberneticists around in 1952, but I doubt that she spoke to any of those.
– Jim Balter
Oct 10 '18 at 4:26
1
1
The link seems to be 404 right now, in any case, "Grace" above is Grace Hopper.
– ShiDoiSi
Sep 20 '10 at 16:50
The link seems to be 404 right now, in any case, "Grace" above is Grace Hopper.
– ShiDoiSi
Sep 20 '10 at 16:50
1
1
I've heard that Hopper wrote the first compiler, but the description above it makes it sound more like a linker than a compiler. Still, good story. It's amazing to think there was a time when computer scientists were skeptical about the idea of compilers...
– Mark E. Haase
Dec 21 '12 at 20:32
I've heard that Hopper wrote the first compiler, but the description above it makes it sound more like a linker than a compiler. Still, good story. It's amazing to think there was a time when computer scientists were skeptical about the idea of compilers...
– Mark E. Haase
Dec 21 '12 at 20:32
1
1
@mehaase this is why it is called "compiler". it makes a compilation of routines, each of which is (potentially) written in machine language directly.
– Elazar
Jun 4 '13 at 21:37
@mehaase this is why it is called "compiler". it makes a compilation of routines, each of which is (potentially) written in machine language directly.
– Elazar
Jun 4 '13 at 21:37
@MarkE.Haase The people Hopper referred to here were applications engineers and scientists using computers to for specific calculation tasks; they were not "computer scientists". There was a handful of cyberneticists around in 1952, but I doubt that she spoke to any of those.
– Jim Balter
Oct 10 '18 at 4:26
@MarkE.Haase The people Hopper referred to here were applications engineers and scientists using computers to for specific calculation tasks; they were not "computer scientists". There was a handful of cyberneticists around in 1952, but I doubt that she spoke to any of those.
– Jim Balter
Oct 10 '18 at 4:26
add a comment |
The first programs were written in machine code (not assembly language) - actual numbers plugged into the computer memory using switches. We've come a long way...
Sometimes this still happens to a small extent - to patch small bits of code or create thunks. I recall punching in numbers into Basic strings that were then executed as small, fast subroutines on early micros. I also remember toggling switches on a PDP-11's front panel to enter a bootloader program into its memory for a university course.
These programs would sometimes be used to process text files to create other programs, and voila programming languages were created.
The question is about the first compiler, not the first programs in general, despite programs sometimes being compilers; the history of the two is not the same. (An analogy: the answer to the question of when the first animals appeared on the Earth is not the answer to the question of when the first cats appeared on the Earth, despite cats being animals.)
– Jim Balter
Jan 6 '17 at 14:55
add a comment |
The first programs were written in machine code (not assembly language) - actual numbers plugged into the computer memory using switches. We've come a long way...
Sometimes this still happens to a small extent - to patch small bits of code or create thunks. I recall punching in numbers into Basic strings that were then executed as small, fast subroutines on early micros. I also remember toggling switches on a PDP-11's front panel to enter a bootloader program into its memory for a university course.
These programs would sometimes be used to process text files to create other programs, and voila programming languages were created.
The question is about the first compiler, not the first programs in general, despite programs sometimes being compilers; the history of the two is not the same. (An analogy: the answer to the question of when the first animals appeared on the Earth is not the answer to the question of when the first cats appeared on the Earth, despite cats being animals.)
– Jim Balter
Jan 6 '17 at 14:55
add a comment |
The first programs were written in machine code (not assembly language) - actual numbers plugged into the computer memory using switches. We've come a long way...
Sometimes this still happens to a small extent - to patch small bits of code or create thunks. I recall punching in numbers into Basic strings that were then executed as small, fast subroutines on early micros. I also remember toggling switches on a PDP-11's front panel to enter a bootloader program into its memory for a university course.
These programs would sometimes be used to process text files to create other programs, and voila programming languages were created.
The first programs were written in machine code (not assembly language) - actual numbers plugged into the computer memory using switches. We've come a long way...
Sometimes this still happens to a small extent - to patch small bits of code or create thunks. I recall punching in numbers into Basic strings that were then executed as small, fast subroutines on early micros. I also remember toggling switches on a PDP-11's front panel to enter a bootloader program into its memory for a university course.
These programs would sometimes be used to process text files to create other programs, and voila programming languages were created.
edited Oct 31 '09 at 7:07
answered Oct 31 '09 at 7:01
Michael Burr
281k40427666
281k40427666
The question is about the first compiler, not the first programs in general, despite programs sometimes being compilers; the history of the two is not the same. (An analogy: the answer to the question of when the first animals appeared on the Earth is not the answer to the question of when the first cats appeared on the Earth, despite cats being animals.)
– Jim Balter
Jan 6 '17 at 14:55
add a comment |
The question is about the first compiler, not the first programs in general, despite programs sometimes being compilers; the history of the two is not the same. (An analogy: the answer to the question of when the first animals appeared on the Earth is not the answer to the question of when the first cats appeared on the Earth, despite cats being animals.)
– Jim Balter
Jan 6 '17 at 14:55
The question is about the first compiler, not the first programs in general, despite programs sometimes being compilers; the history of the two is not the same. (An analogy: the answer to the question of when the first animals appeared on the Earth is not the answer to the question of when the first cats appeared on the Earth, despite cats being animals.)
– Jim Balter
Jan 6 '17 at 14:55
The question is about the first compiler, not the first programs in general, despite programs sometimes being compilers; the history of the two is not the same. (An analogy: the answer to the question of when the first animals appeared on the Earth is not the answer to the question of when the first cats appeared on the Earth, despite cats being animals.)
– Jim Balter
Jan 6 '17 at 14:55
add a comment |
protected by Ry-♦ Jun 25 '13 at 2:39
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
possible duplicate of When someone writes a new programming language, what do they write it IN?
– nawfal
Jul 21 '14 at 11:31