Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 14:47:58 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <vejauu$186ln$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uu54la$3su5b$6@dont-email.me> <vegqu5$o3ve$1@dont-email.me> <veh9ph$fl2$1@reader1.panix.com> <veiki1$14g6h$1@dont-email.me> <vej6rs$1d4$1@reader1.panix.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 16:47:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f4e8605d1a482459fedfaef44a859ddc";
	logging-data="1317559"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19F2RarcfuUCHY45d3jY7DS"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eJvztZ1BifKPk/69hibC7BnFGdw=
Bytes: 2592

On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 13:38:04 -0000 (UTC)
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) boring babbled:
>In article <veiki1$14g6h$1@dont-email.me>,  <Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org> wrote:
>>On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:15:45 -0000 (UTC)
>>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) boring babbled:
>>>Oh really?  Is that why they call it "machine language"?  It's
>>>even in the dictionary with "machine code" as a synonymn:
>>>https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/machine%20language
>>
>>Its not a programming language. 
>
>That's news to those people who have, and sometimes still do,
>write programs in it.

Really? So if its a language you'll be able to understand this then:

0011101011010101010001110101010010110110001110010100101001010100
0101001010010010100101010111001010100110100111010101010101010101
0001110100011101010001001010110011100010101001110010100101100010

>But that's not important.  If we go back and look at what I

Oh right.

>
>|No.  It translates one computer _language_ to another computer
>|_language_.  In the usual case, that's from a textual source
>
>Note that I said, "computer language", not "programming
>language".  Being a human-readable language is not a requirement
>for a computer language.

Oh watch those goalpost moves with pedant set to 11. Presumably you
think the values of the address lines is a language too.

>Your claim that "machine language" is not a "language" is simply
>not true.  Your claim that a "proper" compiler must take the
>shape you are pushing is also not true.

If you say so.