Path: ...!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 14:36:38 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <vej38o$16o9g$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> <veikdn$14fkj$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:36:40 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="da0c5c405ecaf41e3216016f1ae74cd4";
	logging-data="1270064"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18QRuVs0rPo41WR9NhhipxO"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:UHBtH/05nz3llE5nJ3gia0YohbE=
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
In-Reply-To: <veikdn$14fkj$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2860

On 14.10.2024 10:23, Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 18:28:32 +0200
> Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> boring babbled:
>> [ X-post list reduced ]
>>
>> On 13.10.2024 18:02, Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 15:30:03 -0000 (UTC)
>>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) boring babbled:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Careful (myself included); watch out for the glazed frost!
>>
>> You know there's formal definitions for what constitutes languages.
>>
>> At first glance I don't see why machine code wouldn't quality as a
>> language (either as some specific "mnemonic" representation, or as
>> a sequence of integral numbers or other "code" representations).
>> What's the problem, in your opinion, with considering machine code
>> as a language?
> 
> A programming language is an abstraction of machine instructions that is
> readable by people.

Yes, you can explain "programming language" that way.

The topic that was cited (Aho, et al.) upthread (and what I spoke
about) was more generally about [formal] "language", the base also
of programming languages.

(In early days of computers they programmed in binary, but that is
just a side note and unnecessary to support the definition of the
upthread cited text.)

Janis