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.

cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote or quoted:
>Your claim that "machine language" is not a "language" is simply
>not true.

Machine language is a language.

(It might not be a /formal/ language when the specification
is not definite. For example, when one says, "6502", are the
"undocumented" opcodes a part of this language or not? So, for
a formal language, you have to make sure that it's definite.)

Not related to unix. So, not,

Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.misc

, but,

Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc

.

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 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).

In article <vejauu$186ln$1@dont-email.me>, <Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 13:38:04 -0000 (UTC)
>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) boring babbled:
>>[snip]
>>|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.

Dunno what to tell you: pretty sure you're the one who
asserted I meant something something I didn't write.

>>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.

Not just me.

- Dan C.

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 14/10/2024 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 :-)

[Followup-To: set to comp.lang.misc, -comp.unix.programmer]

In article <vejghe$192vs$1@dont-email.me>, Bart <bc@freeuk.com> 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.)

PAL-D is an assembler for the PDP-8 computer. I don't know why
one wouldn't consider it's input a programming language.
https://bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/pdp8/handbooks/programmingLanguages_May70.pdf

- Dan C.

In comp.unix.programmer Muttley@dastartdlyhq.org wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Oct 2024 22:25:05 +0100
> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> boring babbled:
>>Bozo User <anthk@disroot.org> writes:
>>> On 2024-04-07, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 07 Apr 2024 00:01:43 +0000, Javier wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The downside is the loss of performance because of disk access for
>>>>> trivial things like 'nfiles=$(ls | wc -l)'.
>>>>
>>>> Well, you could save one process creation by writing
>>>> ???nfiles=$(echo * | wc -l)??? instead. But that would still not be
>>strictly
>>>> correct.
>>>>
>>>>> I suspect disk access times where
>>>>> one of the reasons for the development of perl in the early 90s.
>>>>
>>>> Shells were somewhat less powerful in those days. I would describe the
>>>> genesis of Perl as ???awk on steroids???. Its big party trick was regular
>>>> expressions. And I guess combining that with more sophisticated data-
>>>> structuring capabilities.
>>>
>>> Perl is more awk+sed+sh in a single language. Basically the killer
>>> of the Unix philophy in late 90's/early 00's, and for the good.
>>
>>Perl is a high-level programming language with a rich syntax??, with
>>support for deterministic automatic memory management, functions as
>>first-class objects and message-based OO. It's also a virtual machine
>>for executing threaded code and a(n optimizing) compiler for translating
>>Perl code into the corresponding threaded code.
>
> Its syntax is also a horrific mess. Larry took the worst parts of C and shell
> syntax and mashed them together. Its no surprise Perl has been ditched in
> favour of Python just about everywhere for new scripting projects. And while
> I hate Pythons meangingful whitespace nonsense, I'd use it in preference
> to Perl any day.

I think you've identified the one language that Python is better than.

On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 07:31:13 -0000 (UTC)
Sebastian <sebastian@here.com.invalid> boring babbled:
>In comp.unix.programmer Muttley@dastartdlyhq.org wrote:
>> syntax and mashed them together. Its no surprise Perl has been ditched in
>> favour of Python just about everywhere for new scripting projects. And while
>> I hate Pythons meangingful whitespace nonsense, I'd use it in preference
>> to Perl any day.
>
>I think you've identified the one language that Python is better than.

Yes, Python does have a lot of cons as a language. But its syntax lets
newbies get up to speed quickly and there are a lot of libraries. However its
dog slow and inefficient and I'm amazed its used as a key language for AI
development - not traditionally a newbie coder area - when in that application
speed really is essential. Yes it generally calls libraries written in C/C++
but then why not just write the higher level code in C++ too?

Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org writes:

> On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 07:31:13 -0000 (UTC)
> Sebastian <sebastian@here.com.invalid> boring babbled:
>>In comp.unix.programmer Muttley@dastartdlyhq.org wrote:
>>> syntax and mashed them together. Its no surprise Perl has been ditched in
>>> favour of Python just about everywhere for new scripting projects. And while
>>> I hate Pythons meangingful whitespace nonsense, I'd use it in preference
>>> to Perl any day.
>>
>>I think you've identified the one language that Python is better than.
>
> Yes, Python does have a lot of cons as a language. But its syntax lets
> newbies get up to speed quickly and there are a lot of libraries. However its
> dog slow and inefficient and I'm amazed its used as a key language for AI
> development - not traditionally a newbie coder area - when in that application
> speed really is essential. Yes it generally calls libraries written in C/C++
> but then why not just write the higher level code in C++ too?

You'd have to give up the REPL, for instance.

On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:28:51 -0300
Wolfgang Agnes <wagnes@jemoni.to> gabbled:
>Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org writes:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 07:31:13 -0000 (UTC)
>> Sebastian <sebastian@here.com.invalid> boring babbled:
>>>In comp.unix.programmer Muttley@dastartdlyhq.org wrote:
>>>> syntax and mashed them together. Its no surprise Perl has been ditched in
>>>> favour of Python just about everywhere for new scripting projects. And
>while
>>>> I hate Pythons meangingful whitespace nonsense, I'd use it in preference
>>>> to Perl any day.
>>>
>>>I think you've identified the one language that Python is better than.
>>
>> Yes, Python does have a lot of cons as a language. But its syntax lets
>> newbies get up to speed quickly and there are a lot of libraries. However its
>
>> dog slow and inefficient and I'm amazed its used as a key language for AI
>> development - not traditionally a newbie coder area - when in that
>application
>> speed really is essential. Yes it generally calls libraries written in C/C++
>> but then why not just write the higher level code in C++ too?
>
>You'd have to give up the REPL, for instance.

Not that big a deal especially if the model takes hours or days to train
anyway.

On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 10:06:40 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:

> Yes it generally calls libraries written in C/C++
> but then why not just write the higher level code in C++ too?

Because it’s easier to do higher-level stuff in Python.

Example:
<https://github.com/HamPUG/meetings/tree/master/2018/2018-08-13/ldo-creating-api-bindings-using-ctypes>

On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 07:31:13 -0000 (UTC), Sebastian wrote:

> In comp.unix.programmer Muttley@dastartdlyhq.org wrote:
>
>> [Perl’s] syntax is also a horrific mess. Larry took the worst parts of
>> C and shell syntax and mashed them together.
>
> I think you've identified the one language that Python is better than.

In terms of the modern era of high-level programming, Perl was the
breakthrough language. Before Perl, BASIC was considered to be an example
of a language with “good” string handling. After Perl, BASIC looked old
and clunky indeed.

Perl was the language that made regular expressions sexy. Because it made
them easy to use.