<span>Hold down the Ctrl key as you click the cells you would like to select.</span>
The distinction between "computer architecture" and "computer organization" has become very fuzzy, if no completely confused or unusable. Computer architecture was essentially a contract with software stating unambiguously what the hardware does. The architecture was essentially a set of statements of the form "If you execute this instruction (or get an interrupt, etc.), then that is what happens. Computer organization, then, was a usually high-level description of the logic, memory, etc, used to implement that contract: These registers, those data paths, this connection to memory, etc.
Programs written to run on a particular computer architecture should always run correctly on that architecture no matter what computer organization (implementation) is used.
For example, both Intel and AMD processors have the same X86 architecture, but how the two companies implement that architecture (their computer organizations) is usually very different. The same programs run correctly on both, because the architecture is the same, but they may run at different speeds, because the organizations are different. Likewise, the many companies implementing MIPS, or ARM, or other processors are providing the same architecture - the same programs run correctly on all of them - but have very different high - level organizations inside them.
Answer:
Command: Systemoutprintln (b)
Output: 7
Explanation:
To solve this problem, we must take into account the precedence of operation.
The division takes precedence before the addition, so we must divide before we add for b.
So
int b = 4 + 6/2 = 4 + 3 = 7.
So
Command: Systemoutprintln (b)
Output: 7
Answer:
Basically, dealing with the "software crisis" is what we now call software engineering. We just see the field more clearly now.
What this crisis was all about is that in the early days of the modern technological era -- in the 1950s, say -- there was tremendous optimism about the effect that digital computers could have on society, on their ability to literally solve humanity's problems. We just needed to formalize important questions and let our hulking "digital brains" come up with the answers.
Artificial intelligence, for example, had some early successes in easy to formalize domains like chess and these sorts of successes led to lots of people who should have known better making extremely naive predictions about how soon perfect machine translation would transform human interaction and how soon rote and onerous work would be relegated to the dustbin of history by autonomous intelligent machines.
The problem with the swap function is that it loses the value at the first index, as soon as it gets overwritten by the value at the second index. This happens in the first statement. To fix it, you need a helper variable.
First you're going to "park" the index at the first index in that helper variable, then you can safely overwrite it with the value at the second index. Then finally you can write the parked value to the second index:
var swap = function(array, firstIndex, secondIndex) {
let helper = array[firstIndex];
array[firstIndex] = array[secondIndex];
array[secondIndex] = helper;
};
I hope this makes sense to you.
