From: Phillip Gawlowski Date: 2011-04-12T17:40:13+09:00 Subject: Re: functional paradigm taking over On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Kevin wrote: > No I'm not confusing them, all programs provide the vocabulary (Means of > expression.  Look it up if you don't believe me.) necessary to deal with a > particular problem or problem domain. That doesn't make them languages, or languages useful for everything. Or do you really believe the Egyptians spoke in little pictures of birds, eyes and waves? >  Furthermore what you said hardly > distinguishes computer programs from every other language humans have ever > or will ever create. The difference between the two is so obvious, I don't think it needs to be spelled out (The Latin and Asian languages suffer from a distinct lack of looping constructs, as well as disambiguity, for example). >  All of those solve particular problems just as much as > computer programs do. Human languages don't solve problems. They facilitate communications which, considering the circumstances, enables problem solving in groups. Very different thing from programming languages which exist to solve problems (there are of course levels of abstractions with languages providing richer or poorer semantics to deal with particular problems, or to provide other trade offs). >  What a program is, is a system as opposed to a > singular object like a table or a chair.  The system is itself the tool and > the system exists solely to allow humans to express their will to machines. Superficially correct, but programs exist to do stuff. Be that data storage, data analysis, or whatever, but programs don't impose a user's will on a machine. They enable users to accomplish a task easier and faster (ideally), than the lack of a tool would allow. > Terseness is a problem the moment it causes people to prioritize it above > superior semantics.  It might be a great idea to use the mathematical symbol > for lambda to refer to a lambda function but it is not necessarily a great > idea to use an ellipsis to refer to an exclusive range like we do in Ruby. >  Both use very few characters to get the job done, but one is not only much > more distinct, it is far easier to explain since it matches a subject more > people are likely to associate correctly with very little in the way of > explanation. Again, not a problem of terseness but a problem of semantics. -- Phillip Gawlowski Though the folk I have met, (Ah, how soon!) they forget When I've moved on to some other place, There may be one or two, When I've played and passed through, Who'll remember my song or my face.