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 16:02:13 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <vegqu5$o3ve$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uu54la$3su5b$6@dont-email.me> <vefvo0$k1mm$1@dont-email.me> <vegiqq$me2$1@reader1.panix.com> <vegmul$ne3v$1@dont-email.me> <vegp1r$oqh$1@reader1.panix.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 18:02:14 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2c699ffd671cbe709432fafaa1e21356";
	logging-data="790510"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19+2C4NrRPCmqB1u17JDVfS"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+GMkApnTukK8W6aBucD+238lzZQ=
Bytes: 4152

On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 15:30:03 -0000 (UTC)
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) boring babbled:
>In article <vegmul$ne3v$1@dont-email.me>,  <Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org> wrote:
>>So what is standard terminology then?
>
>I've already explained this to you.

No you haven't. You explanation seems to be "anything that converts from one
language to another".

>>What happens inside the CPU is irrelevant. Its a black box as far as the
>>rest of the machine is concerned. As I said in another post, it could be
>>pixies with abacuses, doesn't matter.
>
>So why do you think it's so important that the definition of a

Who said its important? Its just what most people think of as compilers.

>CPU"?  If, as you admit, what the CPU does is highly variable,
>then why do you cling so hard to this meaningless distinction?

You're the one making a big fuss about it with pages of waffle to back up
your claim.

>>[lots of waffle snipped]
>
>In other words, you discard anything that doesn't fit with your
>preconceptions.  Got it.

No, I just have better things to do on a sunday than read all that. Keep
it to the point.

>>So its incomplete and has to revert to software for some opcodes. Great.
>>FWIW Sun also had a java processor but you still can't run bytecode on
>>normal hardware without a JVM.
>
>Cool.  So if I run a program targetting a newer version of an
>ISA is run on an older machine, and that machine lacks a newer
>instruction present in the program, and the CPU generates an
>illegal instruction trap at runtime that the OS catches and
>emulates on the program's behalf, the program was not compiled?
>
>And again, what about an emulator for a CPU running on a
>different CPU?  I can boot 7th Edition Unix on a PDP-11
>emulator on my workstation; does that mean that the 7the
>edition C compiler wasn't a compiler?

Its all shades of grey. You seem to be getting very worked up about it.
As I said, most people consider a compiler as something that translates source 
code to machine code and writes it to a file.

>>Why, whats the difference? Your definition seems to be any program that can
>>translate from one language to another.
>
>If you can't see that yourself, then you're either ignorant or
>obstinant.  Take your pick.

So you can't argue the failure of your logic then. Noted.

>>Yes, they're entirely analoguous.
>>
>>https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E11882_01/appdev.112/e10825/pc_02prc.htm
>
>Nah, not really.

Oh nice counter arguement, you really sold your POV there.

>>Who cares about the current state? Has nothing to do with this discussion.
>
>In other words, "I don't have an argument, so I'll just lamely
>try to define things until I'm right."

Im just defining things the way most people see it, not some ivory tower
academics. Anyway, lifes too short for the rest. 

[tl;dr]

>>that a compiler is pretty much any program which translates from one thing to
>>another.
>
>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.