 | | Re: mindstorms NXT and memory
|
|
(...) There the same. (...) I guess my last post didn't make it. Fundamentally, Steve is correct that RISC is typically more complex to program since it uses less general purpose registers and more complex instructions (it tries to do more per clock (...) (19 years ago, 10-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: mindstorms NXT and memory
|
|
(...) Obviously you've not coded in machine language, or you'd know they are not. (...) You misunderstand RISC and CISC. CISC instructions often combine data memory references with arithmetic, logical, or brach capabilities. RISC machines do not. (...) (19 years ago, 10-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: mindstorms NXT and memory
|
|
(...) If you are talking about the actual 1's and 0's that represent machine code then you are correct and I misinterpreted your last post, i.e. the binary. When people speak of binaries they are usually referring to something like an executable (...) (19 years ago, 10-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: mindstorms NXT and memory
|
|
(...) Now you're talkin! I've never really done more than a half dozen instructions, unless it was a homework problem waaaaaaaay (and I really mean waaaaaaaay ;^) back in college. (...) I guess this is what CISC proponents say. I don't know that I (...) (19 years ago, 10-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: mindstorms NXT and memory
|
|
(...) I totally agree! I stated this in another thread (or maybe this one) that assembly code on Intel is like Java Byte Code (but worse). I mean its not like you *really* know as a "high-level assembly programmer" exactly the order in which (...) (19 years ago, 10-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
