2 ms·
> Is there any reason why they didn't develop one? “Now you have two problems.” Edit: OK, maybe that deserves explanation. First, an optimizing compiler is a
by kps 10y ago
> Is there any reason why they didn't develop one?
“Now you have two problems.”
Edit: OK, maybe that deserves explanation. First, an optimizing compiler is a much bigger project than the AGC code. Second, current optimization techniques didn't exist in 1969, even assuming NASA had enough budget for machine(s) to run them. Third, you need to verify the binary anyway, and small source changes (in either the guidance code or the compiler) can lead to large binary changes.
- alehander42 10y agoI still think it's easier to verify two isolated projects: the compiler(that can be reused) and the apollo code instead of mashing all of the equations code in assembly. I doubt the people were so used to assembly(especially scientists) that they they didn't require a magnitude more time to mentally parse/unparse logic and equations to machine code. (Also the compiler doesn't have to be very high level, even just a glorified macro-assembler with some syntactic sugar for math does seem not hard)