Yeah, I think that's fair. I just don't want anyone to get the idea that "type" (conceptually) isn't an important concept in machine code, which would be fundamentally misleading.
BTW, although I have limited experience writing assembly, I checked all of this with one of my co-workers, who programmed in binary and machine code (with punchcards) as his full time job for many years.
Yeah, I think that's fair. I just don't want anyone to get the idea that "type" (conceptually) isn't an important concept in machine code, which would be fundamentally misleading.
BTW, although I have limited experience writing assembly, I checked all of this with one of my co-workers, who programmed in binary and machine code (with punchcards) as his full time job for many years.
Fair point. I'm not sure shall we call it Types or Encoding 🤔.
Non scientific chart:
Heh, excellent chart. "Machine types" is a bit closer to what I'm talking about, I think, although encoding certainly enters into it some.