Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.in-chemnitz.de!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 08:23:20 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 10:23:21 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f4e8605d1a482459fedfaef44a859ddc"; logging-data="1195667"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18yDyuYPBfBkyOHsHO0TvhJ" Cancel-Lock: sha1:MLj9VvSX8cFzzIVi3liRuPJlm2E= Bytes: 2130 On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 18:28:32 +0200 Janis Papanagnou 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.