RE: programming language genealogy

-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Hans Boldt
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 3:42 PM
To: rpg400-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: programming language genealogy


Steve Richter wrote:
> So when Flipper would communicate with the Ricks family using squeals and
> clicks, was Flipper not using a language because her? way of talking is
too
> low level or did not have the potential for conversion to human speech?
>
> Shouldnt a language avoid ambiguity, as in dont overload the term
> "programming language" with a 2nd meaning that is not discernible from the
> context of it use?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

>Huh?!?

>There's a very clear difference between "language" and "programming
>language". Sammet's definition is meaningful because it describes
>more or less accurately the things we use for computer programming.
>In particular, her definition describes a programming language as
>something with a definite character set and syntax that can be
>recognized by a computer. Since we program computers using neither
>"squeals and clicks" nor plugboards (at least not anymore), a useful
>definition of "programming language" need not encompass those forms
>of communication.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just dont agree with rejecting things that work because they dont meet the
catch all definitions imposed by academics and other blowhards.  The OO
discussion of a few weeks ago is an example of this.  Programming and design
methods which Hans correctly defined as "modular programming" work very
well, yet the OO crowd dismiss them simply because they are not OO.

But at least the OO crowd has their own distinct wording.  Sennet has
hijacked the generic "programming language" term for her own narrow
definition.

In your first msg on this subject I read:

"a programming language is a set of characters with rules for combining
them. It has the following characteristics; 1) Machine code knowledge is
unnecessary, 2) Potential for conversion to other computers, 3) Instruction
explosion, and 4) problem-oriented notation.".

When did we all vote that languages have to be platform/hardware independent
and portable? Seperating the language from the OS adds levels of
abstraction, which means more details that the programmer has to deal with.
The bottom line is that if languages had useful platform dependent features
they would be eagerly used by programmers.

-Steve