On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 18:28:32 +0200
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> boring babbled:
>[ X-post list reduced ]
>
>On 13.10.2024 18:02, Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 15:30:03 -0000 (UTC)
>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) boring babbled:
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> No. It translates one computer _language_ to another computer
>>> _language_. In the usual case, that's from a textual source
>>
>> Machine code isn't a language. Fallen at the first hurdle with that
>> definition.
>
>Careful (myself included); watch out for the glazed frost!
>
>You know there's formal definitions for what constitutes languages.
>
>At first glance I don't see why machine code wouldn't quality as a
>language (either as some specific "mnemonic" representation, or as
>a sequence of integral numbers or other "code" representations).
>What's the problem, in your opinion, with considering machine code
>as a language?

A programming language is an abstraction of machine instructions that is
readable by people.

On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:15:45 -0000 (UTC)
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) boring babbled:
>In article <vegqu5$o3ve$1@dont-email.me>, <Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org> wrote:

[tl;dr]

>The people who create the field are the ones who get to make
>the defintiions, not you.

ITYF people in the field as a whole make the definitions.

>>Machine code isn't a language. Fallen at the first hurdle with that
>>definition.
>
>Oh really? Is that why they call it "machine language"? It's
>even in the dictionary with "machine code" as a synonymn:
>https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/machine%20language

Its not a programming language.

On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 21:33:56 +0100
Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> boring babbled:
>Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org writes:
>> ITYF the people who dislike Perl are the ones who actually like the unix
>> way of having simple daisychained tools instead of some lump of a language
>> that does everything messily.
>
>Perl is a general-purpose programming language, just like C or Java (or
>Python or Javascript or Rust or $whatnot). This means it can be used to
>implement anything (with some practical limitation for anything) and not
>that it "does everything".

I can be , but generally isn't. Its niche tends to be text processing of
some sort and for that there are better tools IMO. It used to be big in web
backend but those days are long gone.

Janis Papanagnou , dans le message <vehkbt$s85f$1@dont-email.me>, a
écrit :
> I was speaking about [formal] languages as introduced by Chomsky

Are we not progressively realizing that most of what Chomsky said was
unsubstantiated bullshit?

Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org writes:
> On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 21:33:56 +0100
> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> boring babbled:
>>Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org writes:
>>> ITYF the people who dislike Perl are the ones who actually like the unix
>>> way of having simple daisychained tools instead of some lump of a language
>>> that does everything messily.
>>
>>Perl is a general-purpose programming language, just like C or Java (or
>>Python or Javascript or Rust or $whatnot). This means it can be used to
>>implement anything (with some practical limitation for anything) and not
>>that it "does everything".
>
> I can be , but generally isn't. Its niche tends to be text processing of
> some sort

It is. That sysadmin-types using it don't use it to create actual
programs is of no concern for this, because they never do that and this
use only needs a very small subset of the features of the language. I've
been using it as system programming language for programs with up to
21,000 LOC in the main program (and some more thousands in auxiliary
modules) and it's very well-suited to that.

The simple but flexible OO system, reliable automatic memory management
and support for functions/ subroutine as first-class objects make it
very nice for implementing event-driven, asynchronous "crossbar"
programs connecting various external entities both running locallly and
on other computers on the internet to create complex applications from
them.

On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:38:29 +0100
Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> boring babbled:
>The simple but flexible OO system, reliable automatic memory management

For a certain definition of OO. The requirement to have to use $self->
everywhere to denote object method/var access makes it little better than
doing OO in C. Then there's the whole 2 stage object creation with the "bless"
nonsense. Hacky.

On 14.10.2024 03:45, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 01:16:11 +0200, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 13.10.2024 23:10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 18:28:32 +0200, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>>
>>>> You know there's formal definitions for what constitutes languages.
>>>
>>> Not really. For example, some have preferred the term “notation”
>>> instead of “language”.
>>
>> A "notation" is not the same as a [formal (or informal)] "language".
>>
>> (Frankly, I don't know where you're coming from ...
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_language>:
>
> A programming language is a system of notation for writing computer
> programs.

Okay, a "system of notation" (not a "notation") is used here to
_describe_ it. I'm fine with that formulation. Thanks.

Janis

On 14.10.2024 10:23, Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 18:28:32 +0200
> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> boring babbled:
>> [ X-post list reduced ]
>>
>> On 13.10.2024 18:02, Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 15:30:03 -0000 (UTC)
>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) boring babbled:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> No. It translates one computer _language_ to another computer
>>>> _language_. In the usual case, that's from a textual source
>>>
>>> Machine code isn't a language. Fallen at the first hurdle with that
>>> definition.
>>
>> Careful (myself included); watch out for the glazed frost!
>>
>> You know there's formal definitions for what constitutes languages.
>>
>> At first glance I don't see why machine code wouldn't quality as a
>> language (either as some specific "mnemonic" representation, or as
>> a sequence of integral numbers or other "code" representations).
>> What's the problem, in your opinion, with considering machine code
>> as a language?
>
> A programming language is an abstraction of machine instructions that is
> readable by people.

Yes, you can explain "programming language" that way.

The topic that was cited (Aho, et al.) upthread (and what I spoke
about) was more generally about [formal] "language", the base also
of programming languages.

(In early days of computers they programmed in binary, but that is
just a side note and unnecessary to support the definition of the
upthread cited text.)

Janis

In article <veiki1$14g6h$1@dont-email.me>, <Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:15:45 -0000 (UTC)
>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) boring babbled:
>>Oh really? Is that why they call it "machine language"? It's
>>even in the dictionary with "machine code" as a synonymn:
>>https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/machine%20language
>
>Its not a programming language.

That's news to those people who have, and sometimes still do,
write programs in it.

But that's not important. If we go back and look at what I
wrote that you were responding to, it was this statement, about
what a compiler does, and your claim that I was asserting it
was translating anything to anything, which I was not:

|No. It translates one computer _language_ to another computer
|_language_. In the usual case, that's from a textual source

Note that I said, "computer language", not "programming
language". Being a human-readable language is not a requirement
for a computer language.

Your claim that "machine language" is not a "language" is simply
not true. Your claim that a "proper" compiler must take the
shape you are pushing is also not true.

- Dan C.

On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 13:38:04 -0000 (UTC)
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) boring babbled:
>In article <veiki1$14g6h$1@dont-email.me>, <Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org> wrote:
>>On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:15:45 -0000 (UTC)
>>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) boring babbled:
>>>Oh really? Is that why they call it "machine language"? It's
>>>even in the dictionary with "machine code" as a synonymn:
>>>https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/machine%20language
>>
>>Its not a programming language.
>
>That's news to those people who have, and sometimes still do,
>write programs in it.

Really? So if its a language you'll be able to understand this then:

0011101011010101010001110101010010110110001110010100101001010100
0101001010010010100101010111001010100110100111010101010101010101
0001110100011101010001001010110011100010101001110010100101100010

>But that's not important. If we go back and look at what I

Oh right.

>
>|No. It translates one computer _language_ to another computer
>|_language_. In the usual case, that's from a textual source
>
>Note that I said, "computer language", not "programming
>language". Being a human-readable language is not a requirement
>for a computer language.

Oh watch those goalpost moves with pedant set to 11. Presumably you
think the values of the address lines is a language too.

>Your claim that "machine language" is not a "language" is simply
>not true. Your claim that a "proper" compiler must take the
>shape you are pushing is also not true.

If you say so.

Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org writes:
>On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 13:38:04 -0000 (UTC)
>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) boring babbled:
>>In article <veiki1$14g6h$1@dont-email.me>, <Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:15:45 -0000 (UTC)
>>>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) boring babbled:
>>>>Oh really? Is that why they call it "machine language"? It's
>>>>even in the dictionary with "machine code" as a synonymn:
>>>>https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/machine%20language
>>>
>>>Its not a programming language.
>>
>>That's news to those people who have, and sometimes still do,
>>write programs in it.
>
>Really? So if its a language you'll be able to understand this then:
>
>0011101011010101010001110101010010110110001110010100101001010100
>0101001010010010100101010111001010100110100111010101010101010101
>0001110100011101010001001010110011100010101001110010100101100010

I certainly understand this, even four decades later

94A605440C00010200010400000110

Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org writes:
>On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 18:28:32 +0200
>Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> boring babbled:
>>[ X-post list reduced ]
>>
>
>A programming language is an abstraction of machine instructions that is
>readable by people.

By that definition, PAL-D is a programming language.

Any assembler is a programming language, by that definition.

On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:58:13 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) boring babbled:
>Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org writes:
>>On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 18:28:32 +0200
>>Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> boring babbled:
>>>[ X-post list reduced ]
>>>
>>
>>A programming language is an abstraction of machine instructions that is
>>readable by people.
>
>By that definition, PAL-D is a programming language.
>
>Any assembler is a programming language, by that definition.

Where did I say it wasn't? Of course assembler is a programming language.

Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org writes:
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:38:29 +0100
> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> boring babbled:
>>The simple but flexible OO system, reliable automatic memory management

[...]

> Then there's the whole 2 stage object creation with the "bless"
> nonsense. Hacky.

I was planning to write a longer reply but killed it. You're obviously
argueing about something you reject for political reasons despite you're
not really familiar with it and you even 'argue' like a politician. That
is, you stick peiorative labels on stuff you don't like to emphasize how
really disagreeable you believe it to be. IMHO, such a method of
(pseudo-)discussing anything is completely pointless.

On 14/10/2024 16:53, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org writes:
>> On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 13:38:04 -0000 (UTC)
>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) boring babbled:
>>> In article <veiki1$14g6h$1@dont-email.me>, <Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:15:45 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) boring babbled:
>>>>> Oh really? Is that why they call it "machine language"? It's
>>>>> even in the dictionary with "machine code" as a synonymn:
>>>>> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/machine%20language
>>>>
>>>> Its not a programming language.
>>>
>>> That's news to those people who have, and sometimes still do,
>>> write programs in it.
>>
>> Really? So if its a language you'll be able to understand this then:
>>
>> 0011101011010101010001110101010010110110001110010100101001010100
>> 0101001010010010100101010111001010100110100111010101010101010101
>> 0001110100011101010001001010110011100010101001110010100101100010
>
> I certainly understand this, even four decades later
>
> 94A605440C00010200010400000110
>

In my early days of assembly programming on my ZX Spectrum, I would
hand-assembly to machine code, and I knew at least a few of the codes by
heart. (01 is "ld bc, #xxxx", 18 is "jr", c9 is "ret", etc.) So while
I rarely wrote machine code directly, it is certainly still a
programming language - it's a language you can write programs in.

On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 16:04:18 +0100
Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> boring babbled:
>Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org writes:
>> On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:38:29 +0100
>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> boring babbled:
>>>The simple but flexible OO system, reliable automatic memory management
>
>[...]
>
>> Then there's the whole 2 stage object creation with the "bless"
>> nonsense. Hacky.
>
>I was planning to write a longer reply but killed it. You're obviously
>argueing about something you reject for political reasons despite you're
>not really familiar with it and you even 'argue' like a politician. That
>is, you stick peiorative labels on stuff you don't like to emphasize how
>really disagreeable you believe it to be. IMHO, such a method of
>(pseudo-)discussing anything is completely pointless.

Umm, whatever. I was just saying why I didn't like Perl but if you want to
read some grand motive into it knock yourself out.

[ X-post list reduced ]

On 14.10.2024 16:47, Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 13:38:04 -0000 (UTC)
> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) boring babbled:
>> In article <veiki1$14g6h$1@dont-email.me>, <Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:15:45 -0000 (UTC)
>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) boring babbled:
>>>> Oh really? Is that why they call it "machine language"? It's
>>>> even in the dictionary with "machine code" as a synonymn:
>>>> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/machine%20language
>>>
>>> Its not a programming language.
>>
>> That's news to those people who have, and sometimes still do,
>> write programs in it.
>
> Really? So if its a language you'll be able to understand this then:
>
> 0011101011010101010001110101010010110110001110010100101001010100
> 0101001010010010100101010111001010100110100111010101010101010101
> 0001110100011101010001001010110011100010101001110010100101100010

It's substantially (for me) not different from, e.g., Chinese text.

You need context information to understand it. But understanding a
language is not a condition for defining and handling a language.
If there's context information then people can associate semantical
meaning with it (and understand it).

To illustrate (just playing)...

if then else then if or if and else end if

Are you able to understand that? On what abstraction level do you
understand it? Does it make [semantical] sense to you?
(Note: Using the proper translator and interpreter this is quite
dangerous code. For the puzzler; it's a coded shell fork-bomb.)

Janis

[ X-post list reduced ]

On 14.10.2024 17:27, David Brown wrote:
> On 14/10/2024 16:53, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org writes:
>>>
>>> Really? So if its a language you'll be able to understand this then:
>>>
>>> 0011101011010101010001110101010010110110001110010100101001010100
>>> 0101001010010010100101010111001010100110100111010101010101010101
>>> 0001110100011101010001001010110011100010101001110010100101100010
>>
>> I certainly understand this, even four decades later
>>
>> 94A605440C00010200010400000110
>
> In my early days of assembly programming on my ZX Spectrum, I would
> hand-assembly to machine code, and I knew at least a few of the codes by
> heart. (01 is "ld bc, #xxxx", 18 is "jr", c9 is "ret", etc.) So while
> I rarely wrote machine code directly, it is certainly still a
> programming language - it's a language you can write programs in.

Your post triggered some own memories...

I have an old pocket calculator (Sharp PC-1401) programmable in
BASIC. When I found out that it supports undocumented features to
read machine code numbers from memory and write code numbers into
memory (and call them as subprograms) I coded programs in decimal
byte sequences. (A pain, for sure, but in earlier computer eras
even a normal process.)

Janis

On 14.10.2024 09:47, Nicolas George wrote:
> Janis Papanagnou , dans le message <vehkbt$s85f$1@dont-email.me>, a
> écrit :
>> I was speaking about [formal] languages as introduced by Chomsky
>
> Are we not progressively realizing that most of what Chomsky said was
> unsubstantiated bullshit?

Given the generalization and lack of any substance in your post, and
the (enduring) relevance of Chomsky's work for computer science your
comment appears to reveal nothing but ignorance (and of course your
offending habits).

Janis

On 14/10/2024 15:58, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org writes:
>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 18:28:32 +0200
>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> boring babbled:
>>> [ X-post list reduced ]
>>>
>>
>> A programming language is an abstraction of machine instructions that is
>> readable by people.
>
> By that definition, PAL-D is a programming language.

(I've no idea what PAL-D is in this context.)

> Any assembler is a programming language, by that definition.

You mean 'assembly'? An assembler (in the sofware world) is usually a
program that translates textual assembly code.

'Compiler' isn't a programming language (although no doubt someone here
will dredge up some obscure language with exactly that name just to
prove me wrong).

On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 08:23:20 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:

> A programming language is an abstraction of machine instructions that is
> readable by people.

Like converting circuit voltages to human-readable “1” and “0” symbols,
perhaps?

On 14 Oct 2024 07:47:40 GMT, Nicolas George wrote:

> Janis Papanagnou , dans le message <vehkbt$s85f$1@dont-email.me>, a
> écrit :
>> I was speaking about [formal] languages as introduced by Chomsky
>
> Are we not progressively realizing that most of what Chomsky said was
> unsubstantiated bullshit?

And we have found yet another shibboleth for exposing those of a, shall we
say, certain backwards-looking political persuasion ...

Janis Papanagnou , dans le message <vej2n0$16ljv$1@dont-email.me>, a
écrit :
> Given the generalization and lack of any substance in your post, and
> the (enduring) relevance of Chomsky's work for computer science your
> comment appears to reveal nothing but ignorance (and of course your
> offending habits).

After checking, his works in linguistics are indeed mostly unsubstantiated
and nowadays mostly discredited, but he did indeed some valid math and
computer science a long time ago.

Funny he's mostly known for what he's bad at.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro , dans le message <vek0vj$1bek1$3@dont-email.me>, a
écrit :
> And we have found yet another shibboleth for exposing those of a, shall we
> say, certain backwards-looking political persuasion ...

Care to elaborate, or will you leave the vacuum of your message hidden
behind the obscurity of its wording?

On 14/10/2024 18:23, Bart wrote:
> On 14/10/2024 15:58, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org writes:
>>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 18:28:32 +0200
>>> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> boring babbled:
>>>> [ X-post list reduced ]
>>>>
>>>
>>> A programming language is an abstraction of machine instructions that is
>>> readable by people.
>>
>> By that definition, PAL-D is a programming language.
>
> (I've no idea what PAL-D is in this context.)
>
>> Any assembler is a programming language, by that definition.
>
>
> You mean 'assembly'? An assembler (in the sofware world) is usually a
> program that translates textual assembly code.
>

I took "an assembler" to mean "an assembler language", which is a common
alternative way to write "an assembly language". And IMHO, any assembly
language /is/ a programming language.

> 'Compiler' isn't a programming language (although no doubt someone here
> will dredge up some obscure language with exactly that name just to
> prove me wrong).
>

I tried, just to please you, but I couldn't find such a language :-)