<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body><div>Wikipedia has some rather odd ideas sometimes.</div><div><br></div><div>Is there any source for actual Whirlwind Code? It might give more information about how people actually used it.</div><div> </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div id="composer_signature"><div style="font-size:85%;color:#575757" dir="auto">Sent from my Galaxy Tab® A</div></div><div><br></div><div style="font-size:100%;color:#000000"><!-- originalMessage --><div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Paul Koning <paulkoning@comcast.net> </div><div>Date: 9/6/17 8:19 AM (GMT-07:00) </div><div>To: khandy21yo <khandy21yo@gmail.com> </div><div>Cc: Timothe Litt <litt@ieee.org>, simh@trailing-edge.com </div><div>Subject: Re: [Simh] retargetable assembler </div><div><br></div></div><br>> On Sep 6, 2017, at 9:21 AM, khandy21yo <khandy21yo@gmail.com> wrote:<br>> <br>> Reading the Wikipedia page about Whirlwind, it mentions that the pdp1 is a direct descendent, so would a pdp1 assembler work? Or a tx0 Assembler? I don't know if these already exist or not.<br><br>I wonder why it would say that. PDP1 and TX0 are both 18-bit machines. Their instruction sets are quite different from each other, and very different also from Whirlwind judging by the documents on Bitsavers. They are all single address accumulator machines, but then again so are most other computers of that era.<br><br> paul<br><br></body></html>