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:AxJJa.533$Vd7.47369377@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Randy McLaughlin" <randy@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:wDHJa.1033$lT4.267@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com...
> > 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.
>
> Ah - again I've been insufficiently clear.
>
> I never intended to provide you with a reference definition of a 'computer
> programming language'.  I only included references so you could look up
the
> parts of *my* definition that you don't seem familiar with: the various
> formalisms for expressing semantics and syntax, as well as the hurdle of
> Turing-completeness.
>
> > The 'Turing completeness' applies to computational languages.  To limit
a
> > language to computational limits what a computer will be allowed to do.
>
> Not at all.  One is free to propose a language that can do more
computation
> than a Turing machine; to me, however, you must do *at least* as much
> computation as a Turing machine to meet my definition of a 'computer
> programming language'.  Anything less is not interesting to me.
>
> HTML does *no* computation, so it doesn't meet my definition.  Nor do
other
> markup languages like XML and SGML.
>
> You don't have to agree with my definition.  But if you disagree, please
> propose something better than 'a computer programming language is a
language
> used to program computers'.  Sheesh.
>
> > One idiot claims he does not care what is documented he only cares about
> > what two people think that he respects.
>
> Personally, I feel much the same way although I might not set a "hard and
> fast" number.  My definition doesn't seem to come from any particular
> reference so much as it comes from 20 years of programming, a BS in
computer
> science, and several years of graduate school studying (among other
things)
> computer programming languages.  I'm pretty confident that my definition
> wouldn't get too much argument from my professors or from current
> practioners in the field of 'computer programming languages'.
>
> I believe that practioners *always* define their own argot / jargon.
Other
> people come along later and attempt to write it down and provide a
reference
> for the folks outside of the clique.  If the field changes rapidly, the
> references will be out of date to some degree or other.  The argot/jargon
> serves to separate the practioners from the outsiders, and this effect is
> somewhat intended.
>
> Kelly

I could be wrong but I have been assuming that when you have been refering
to Turing you were refering to his "Turing engine".  He defined the
computer, not the computer programming engine.  In part to pass the machine
must be able to be prgrammed, not define the program.  The difference is
technical and gray with the advent of VM's, but as I understand it he
defined the platform.  If you are refering to something else please let me
know (Turing test etc.).  Then again I could be misunderstanding the engine.