Re: Low-level vs. High-level programming (was My First Computer)

["Randy McLaughlin" <randy@nospam.com>]

"Kelly Hall" <hall@priest.com> wrote in message
news:jbeJa.245$3r5.9975866@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Randy McLaughlin" <randy@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:aA4Ja.10576$bH3.2854@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
> > I have yet to find a definition of a programming language better than a
> > language used to program a computer.
>
> For myself, I define a 'computer programming language' as some formalized
> syntax and semantics that express computation sufficient to model a Turing
> machine.  I'm not picky what sort of formalisms one uses; traditionally,
> Extended Backus-Naur Form (EBNF) is handy for syntax, and there are lots
of
> different formalisms for semantics (translational, operational,
> denotational - pick whatever you like).  I insist on Turing-completeness
> because frankly anything less seems pretty boring.  This definition
doesn't
> preclude non-textual programming languages; you'll just need to use a
> different formalism for the syntax.
>
> While HTML has a formal syntax, the semantics is somewhat vague and
> certainly the language is not Turing-complete.  Thus, I don't consider
HTML
> a 'computer programming language'.
>
> Of course, you may define 'computer programming language' any way that
makes
> good sense to you.
>
> > One person posted two references about
> > computer programming languages, but all they did was name a couple of
> > languages and stated the languages are broken into different gl classes,
> but
> > no definition of what a language must contain to be a language.
>
> Does my definition meet your criteria?  If you want, you can google 'EBNF'
> and 'denotational semantics' and 'Turing completeness' - they are well
> understood concepts in computer science.
>
> Kelly

It took me a while but I checked your references.  Unfortunately part of the
references are only available in paper form and must be ordered, since it
appeared to mainly apply to meta-languages I decided it was not worth the
effort to order.  Your references still do not define what a computer
programming language is.  More than that with the standards proposed many
main-line programming languages would fail their standards.

The 'Turing completeness' applies to computational languages.  To limit a
language to computational limits what a computer will be allowed to do.  A
computer is by definition a computational machine and as such should
encompass the definition of a Turing engine, but that does not mean that all
aspects of what is does should continue to demonstrate a Turing engine.

The arguments shown here mimics what is going on in colleges and
universities across the globe:  Many schools are declaring that HTML is not
a language while others are not only stating that it is they are happy to
offer courses in HTML programming.  The real problem is that I can find no
reference to what is a computer programming language, only references to
individual computer programming languages or classes of computer programming
language.

One idiot claims he does not care what is documented he only cares about
what two people think that he respects.  The people he states are experts in
commodore programming and are very respected people, but I personally
believe that other peoples opinions may also be worth something.  Since many
colleges and universities have courses in HTML programming I assume that
they have vetted the people they have chosen to teach these programming
courses.