From: Kevin Date: 2011-04-14T08:44:05+09:00 Subject: Re: functional paradigm taking over --0016e6dab6e4f9eb2604a0d55de8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Ah yes, the old "Oh look specific context" therefore stop reading definition. You cannot properly understand the phrase "programming language" without understanding both terms. The most important term in this case being language. The entire reason the phrase programming language works is because language is recognized as an expressive system. In reality definition twelve takes for granted the kind of input that could be used to deliver instructions to a machine, it assumes that the method used to deliver the instructions is of a symbolic nature. What happens if you are dealing with a computer that is not digital such as one that functions with gears? What happens if some genius manages to use specific frequencies of sound to deliver instructions to the machine? Is the system of sounds that the instructions take the form of not to be considered a language? You say I shot myself in the foot but here is something that might interest you: By your own logic Ruby is not a programming language. Here's why. You wish to separate the Excel environment from the macro system or interpreter that it contains. Ruby and all other programming languages can theoretically be separated in this way as well, the problem here is that if you separate these things your input is meaningless because the system is incomplete. How could you give instructions with Ruby style input without something that can tell the machine what all those instructions mean? The interpreter or compiler allows the computer to understand the directions you give it in a particular language. In other words a unit of a system is not the system. You cannot separate the Excel environment from the interpreter and retain results that are meaningful to a computer. By the same token C++ or Ruby code cannot be separated from the compiler or interpreter and remain meaningful to a computer. Just for your information a computer used to refer to a person that did computations. Around the time that digital computers were coming online one of the major reasons for their adoption in military circles was the fact that the mathematics human computists had to deal with were just too difficult to deal with accurately and in a timely fashion. Oh and for the record if we did have a good enough system for interpreting english for a computer the communication process would be programming because program as in giving instructions is not limited to machines, we program humans all the time. Humans are conditioned (programmed) to read characters almost instantly, we are not born doing that, the necessary instructions are inserted by being spoken to or made to go through drills that explain the formal rules of a language. On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 03:38:23PM +0900, Kevin wrote: > > That is all well and good. But does that fact make the definitions I am > > using incorrect in any way? > > It does not make them incorrect definitions. It does, however, pertain > to this specific context, whereas the definitions you identified do not > pertain to this specific context that way. > > > > > > Does it necessarily make the suggestion that excel is a programming > > language incorrect? > > You *just* shot your argument in the foot. You said "programming > language" which, in the specific, is not the same as "language" in the > generic. By saying "programming language", you have confined your usage > of "language" to the particular case of definition 12, thus excluding the > generalities of definitions three, four, five, and seven. It's like the > difference between "card" and "greeting card", where referring to the > latter, more specific usage of card excludes the ace of spades, my > busines cards, and a 3x5 notecard with notes on it related to some kind > of eXtreme Programming construct. > > Even if you did not exclude them, though, they do not really apply to > your usage except by bending them so far out of shape as to render them > almost meaningless. > > > > > > Someone posted a link to an animation done in Excel (I've seen > > something similar in the past.), is that not giving instructions to a > > computer as per definition twelve? > > No, not really. > > Is pushing the power button on my laptop not giving instructions to a > computer? What about pressing the J key while typing this sentence? You > might as well call the power button and the keyboard "programming > languages" the way you're trying to define the term. The whole problem > with your approach to using the terms "language" in general and > "programming language" in particular is that you are hand-waving away any > specificity and context of meaning and usage, stretching the terms into > such generic, all-encompassing shapes as to strip them of any substantive > meaning at all. By the time you're done, we'll probably be able to > define death as a programming language. > > Is not the fact of brain death, which causes the EEG to change its > behavior, not instructions given to a computer, making it a programming > language by your hopelessly inclusive "definition"? > > (Scare quotes used here because I'm stretching the definition of > "definition" just to accomodate the way you define things.) > > > > > > Heck if you were to speak to a computer using English you could give > > instructions to a computer. As voice recognition technology gets > > better and hopefully cheaper people who are not great at typing may do > > just that in order to create programs that would be no different from > > the ones we type currently. > > If we get to the point where all communication with computers is done via > natural language, that will not make English a programming language. > That will make the communication process no longer "programming". > > -- > Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] > --0016e6dab6e4f9eb2604a0d55de8--