Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 08:18:08 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <vefvo0$k1mm$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uu54la$3su5b$6@dont-email.me> <vedcjc$3mqn$1@dont-email.me> <vedv1k$idp$1@reader1.panix.com> <vee2b1$6vup$1@dont-email.me> <vee8ia$hkq$1@reader1.panix.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 10:18:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2c699ffd671cbe709432fafaa1e21356";
	logging-data="657110"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/b+c02R3LsFLdQGtGU0L0R"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Xfk0sHxujQ14CLQAO8szolskVpY=
Bytes: 3695

On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 16:36:26 -0000 (UTC)
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) boring babbled:
>In article <vee2b1$6vup$1@dont-email.me>,  <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>Unlikely to be running *nix in that case.
>
>We're discussing the concept of a "standalone binary"; you seem
>to think that means a binary image emitted by a linker and meant
>to run under a hosted environment, like an operating system.  It
>does not.

It can mean either. Essentially its a binary that contains directly runnable 
CPU machine code. I'm not sure why you're having such a conceptual struggle 
understanding this simple concept.

>>Now you're just being silly.
>
>*shrug*  Not my problem if you haven't dealt with many embedded
>systems.

I could bore you with the number I've actually "dealt with" including 
military hardware but whats the point. You've probably programmed the 
occasional PIC or arduino and think you're an expert.

>>Are they? Thats debatable these days. I'd say Linux is a lot closer to 
>>the philosphy of BSD and SYS-V than MacOS which is a certified unix.
>
>Yes, they are.

I disagree. Modern linux reminds me a lot of SunOS and HP-UX from back in 
the day. Not something that can be said for MacOS with its role-our-own
Apple specific way of doing pretty much everything.

>>Standalone in the sense that the opcodes in the binary don't need to be
>>transformed into something else before being loaded by the CPU.
>
>Yeah, no, that's not what anybody serious means when they say
>that.

Anybody serious presumably meaning you.

>>I'd say its a grey area because it isn't full compilation is it, the p-code
>>still requires an interpreter before it'll run.
>
>Nope.

Really? So java bytecode will run direct on x86 or ARM will it? Please give
some links to this astounding discovery you've made.

>>Compiling is not the same as converting. Is a javascript to C converter a
>>compiler? By your definition it is.
>
>Yes, of course it is.  So is the terminfo compiler, and any

So in your mind google translate is a "compiler" for spoken languages is it?

>number of other similar things.  The first C++ compiler, cfront
>emitted C code, not object code.  Was it not a compiler?

No, it was a pre-compiler. Just like Oracles PRO*C/C++.

>>Only heard of one of them so mostly irrelevant. Mine come from the name of
>>tools that compile code to a runnable binary.
>
>It's very odd that you seek to speak from a position of
>authority when you don't even know who most of the major people
>in the field are.

I know the important ones. You've dug out some obscure names from google
that probably only a few CS courses even mention never mind study the work of.