Kathleen Booth, the inventor of assembly language, has died
theregister.com
theregister.com
https://hackaday.com/2018/08/21/kathleen-booth-assembling-ea...
https://coding-and-computers.blogspot.com/2022/05/first-amig...
We had a 1 semester assembler class in my uni. While most of the other students didn't get why were we studying assembler, I was extatic.
Nothing more adrenaline pumping than pouring over disassembly print outs and cracking tutorials in the middle of the night to make NOP sleds!
When I look at modern 64 bit assembly instructions, it looks completely incomprehensible, so I'm glad I got to have that relatively gentle introduction on an 8-bit platform.
https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/24/in_memoriam_stephen_w... https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/17/sir_clive_sinclair_ob...
and so on...
I am very glad to hear that you like it, and I am delighted to see it doing so well. I think it's only the 2nd or 3rd obit I've done for the Reg and I did not get a style guide; I just read some previous ones.
It was fascinating to write this. I did a lot of reading and research, and the more I learned, the more interesting and impressive her and her husband's work become to me.
In the end my editor was really chasing me to file my piece, so I am happy that it proved worth the time investment. He too is surprised how well it's done. It may be my single most-tweeted story yet, in a year full-time at El Reg.
FWIW, some background context: Kathleen Booth got her BSc from the same college I got mine. J D Bernal's mentor, W L Bragg, was the son of perhaps the most famous graduate of my secondary school, King William's College: W H Bragg. They are tenuous connections but both pleased me.
If there isn't a writer who knows that area or that field, then it's hard to cover and explain adequately. A few have come up in my time on the Reg who are worthy of coverage but none of the available team really has relevant expertise. :-(
Then again, the writing style is not the worst part of The Register - it's the comments section that's overrun with boomers and their predictably bitter takes when it comes to news involving Big Tech, Silicon Valley or pretty much anything that doesn't have the effect of transporting them back to their nostalgic heyday.
That being said, there doesn't seem to be indication of building an actual assembler, i.e. a program that reads symbolic instructions and produces machine code. AFAIK, the first assembler was built by David Wheeler for the EDSAC.
https://albert.ias.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.12111/7941/Bo...
> Wheeler’s “initial orders” allowed Edsac instructions to be provided in a simple language rather than by writing binary numbers, and made it possible for non-specialists to begin to write programs. This was the first “assembly language” and was the direct precursor of every modern programming language, all of which derive from the desire to let programmers write instructions in a legible form that can then be translated into computer-readable binary.
The mapping of machine code to symbols seems completely ancillary, and as a side comment says, without the demonstration of an assembler and an intent to translate in the other direction, it is premature to say any language has been invented, vs. notation for writing a paper.
(Assembly and poetry were two classes I never got around to in undergrad).
RIP.
But I've never heard this story before.
Having programmed a fair amount in assembly and occasionally in raw machine code, I would estimate at least a 10x productivity increase when an assembler is available. I would not contest if somebody suggested it's more like 100x. A massive milestone in the history of computing, without a doubt.
Wow long life. I didn’t know you until now, RIP.
> I give you a story from my own private life. Early on it became evident to me that Bell Laboratories was not going to give me the conventional acre of programming people to program computing machines in absolute binary. It was clear they weren't going to. But that was the way everybody did it. I could go to the West Coast and get a job with the airplane companies without any trouble, but the exciting people were at Bell Labs and the fellows out there in the airplane companies were not. I thought for a long while about, "Did I want to go or not?" and I wondered how I could get the best of two possible worlds. I finally said to myself, "Hamming, you think the machines can do practically everything. Why can't you make them write programs?" What appeared at first to me as a defect forced me into automatic programming very early. What appears to be a fault, often, by a change of viewpoint, turns out to be one of the greatest assets you can have. But you are not likely to think that when you first look the thing and say, "Gee, I'm never going to get enough programmers, so how can I ever do any great programming?"
https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jrex/teaching/spring2005/fft/h...
If it's the former are you saying he claimed to have invented assembly?
It's an interesting speech and I'm glad you posted it but I'm struggling to understand the connection to Booth
I really wish I could have received an answer. I don't follow why asking the question was considered wrong.
Really - if someone who downvoted this - or understands why it was downvoted could explain I'd really appreciate it.
The take away from the quote posted, to me, was the fact that at one time assembler was a huge innovation. Today it is seen as so low level no one would ever bother with it. But from Hammings perspective it was a huge boon to productivity.
The IBM printers were fun: you could get them to play simple tunes by printing repeating characters on a line.
; pour one out for the homie
xor rax, rax
xor rbx, rcx
xor rcx, rbx
xor rbx, rcx
Michael Abrash's books are worth reading: Zen of and the Black Book (free on github). Also, Hacker's Delight.I didn't know I had Kathleen Booth to thank for laying the groundwork.
RIP
We should not forget that macro processing vastly expanded the power of Assembly language.
There is an analogy with DCF, Document Composition Language. The first MarkUp Language was GML which was a set of DCF macros.
GML evolved into BookMaster which underlayed IBM becoming the world's second most prolific publisher.
I wrote XPSProf which was a DCF ML used by Xerox Canada for writing manuals for its IBM compatible software offerings.
(but mostly to "catch up" on an era I never got to dabble in, namely the old home computers like the C64 and ZX Spectrum, but also intrigued by the new Apple Silicon chips and their ARM stuff)
The difference between raw machine op codes and a nicely formatted asm with whitespace/columns is quite a leap, if you've ever programmed that way.
For that matter, language in use has a "descriptive" side overwhelmingly larger than the "prescriptive" side.
Now, the "assembler" is that thing which takes program components - say, a loop, an array of data and a subroutine - and concatenates them, e.g. fixing addressing (see Wilkes, Wheeler and Gill 1951) - you have to compute, for specification e.g. in the loop, at which address the data and the subroutine will start. The result is hence an "assembly".
Assembling was a clerical work. And famously (or notably), when Donald Gilles wrote an automated assembler, John von Neumann protested that "to have computers perform clerical work is a waste of precious resources".
But since at some point you got a piece of software to assemble the chunks, you can then think of adding an interpreter to translate machine operation mnemonics into machine code. So its syntax becomes "the language for the assembler", and "assembly language" would be "the language to obtain an assembly". Both expressions are weak, and I do not know historical details in their use. Some adopted the use of 'assembly' for the language to reserve 'assembler' for the processing program.
Hey @dang, care to do it?
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
I just checked on the websites of the NYT, on the Guardian - nothing.
It is like in typical treatment of History: progress is at or beyond the margin.
I know that many great scientists and engineers have unfortunately been left in the depths of history, but I also believe that the people who contributed to the foundations of our modern digital world should be known by outsiders as well.
I also feel ritchie's death was overshadowed by jobs death, despite his life having a more fundamental impact on this industry.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2022/10/25/kathleen-b...
https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxmasterrace/comments/ws3kk1/kat...
https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxmasterrace/comments/ws3kk1/com...
I only knew about her passing because I happened to open the Wikipedia page this morning, and I have not seen a single news article about her passing. Even then, the Wikipedia page only says "Died August 14, 2022 (aged 100)", and the most recent information the article contains is "In May 2019, Booth was reported to be living in retirement, at the age of 97."