Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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 17:43:59 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <veje81$18p32$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> <vejauu$186ln$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 17:44:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="da0c5c405ecaf41e3216016f1ae74cd4";
	logging-data="1336418"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ieK/4REesNLA2RTvIY0c4"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VwoUmcvi8yQyW7PKPpRX8V7hNAM=
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
In-Reply-To: <vejauu$186ln$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2948

[ X-post list reduced ]

On 14.10.2024 16:47, Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org wrote:
> 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

It's substantially (for me) not different from, e.g., Chinese text.

You need context information to understand it. But understanding a
language is not a condition for defining and handling a language.
If there's context information then people can associate semantical
meaning with it (and understand it).

To illustrate (just playing)...

  if then else then if or if and else end if

Are you able to understand that? On what abstraction level do you
understand it? Does it make [semantical] sense to you?
(Note: Using the proper translator and interpreter this is quite
dangerous code. For the puzzler; it's a coded shell fork-bomb.)

Janis