Re: programming language genealogy

[Hans Boldt <boldt@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jon Paris wrote:
>  >> The direct predecessor of RPG (I) was the plugboard for the 407
> accounting machine, which is arguably not a programming language.
>
>
> Which is exactly what was meant by tabulators (or tabs) which was the
> generic term used by those who did not live in an IBM centric universe.
> i.e. those of us who programmed Hollerith, British Tab, or ICT equipment.
>
> They were certainly programmed.  In addition to the wires, the "language"
> one used was often a crude form of Anglo-Saxon <grin>.  Since the RPG
> "language" was very directly aimed at emulating the 407's functions - it is
> after all where we get the RPG cycle and indicators from - I think you have
> to count it as a language and place it directly in the time line.  No other
> language (to my knowledge).  At one time there was some form of conversion
> routine whereby you described the plugboard programming and it generated
> RPG.  Or did you plug the board into a device and it worked it out?  Getting
> too old and suffering from CRS these days so I can't recall the exact
> details.
> ...

Well, since I'm in an argumentative mood this morning, I'll offer up 
Jean Sammet's definition of programming language:

"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.".

By this definition plugboards are not a programming language, even 
though they are certainly programmed.

(You might want to quibble with Sammet's definition since at one 
time she refused to include RPG in her lists of programming languages!)

Cheers! Hans