Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 01:16:11 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <vehkbt$s85f$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$1@reader1.panix.com> <vegqu5$o3ve$1@dont-email.me>
 <vegsfh$ofeu$1@dont-email.me> <vehcve$qqko$9@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 01:16:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="df2a3ca8821317a337f1f530d6986a57";
	logging-data="925871"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18lc3X+4S2NjeN+8zKYy3oC"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:D/nSceWoqncoxYQ+unjEnEh47vg=
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
In-Reply-To: <vehcve$qqko$9@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2406

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; mind to explain your
point if you think it's relevant. - But since you wrote "_some_ have
preferred" it might anyway have been only an opinion or a historic
inaccuracy so it's probably not worth expanding on that?)

I think we should be clear about terminology.

I was speaking about [formal] languages as introduced by Chomsky and
used (and extended) by scientists (specifically computer scientists)
since then. And these formal characteristics of languages and grammars
are also the base of the books that have been mentioned and recently
quoted in this sub-thread.

> Regardless of what you call it, machine code still qualifies.

Glad you agree.

Janis