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

["White Flame \(aka David Holz\)" <whiteflame52@y.a.h.o.o.com>]

"Randy McLaughlin" <randy@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:aA4Ja.10576$bH3.2854@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
> That's the problem with trying to pound down a definition to hard.
>
> I have yet to find a definition of a programming language better than a
> language used to program a computer.  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.
>
> I have seen people argue about needing to have the ability to write a
> program that modify graphics to be a programming language.  What states
must
> be available, etc.  I have yet to see any evidence showing more than the
> dictionary definition.

Did you read my longer post?  I basically said that a computer programming
language should be able to control the computer in the general case.  HTML
only hints HTML viewers on how to display certain blocks of data, and thus
can't control the general capacities of a computer.  HTML can be considered
a language that programs HTML viewers with such data, but not a computer
programming language.  It does not program computers, only a small subset of
applications.

However, you seem to be using "programming", "programming language",
"computer language", and "computer programming language" fairly
interchangeably, which destroys any attempt at you trying to get a concrete
definition for any of the 4 technically separate things.  Similarly, in the
context of dealing with software engineers and other computer people,
"computer programming language" is usually shortened to simply "programming
language", etc, but the implied context carries with it the full
specification of "computer programming language".

--
White Flame (aka David Holz)
http://www.white-flame.com/
(spamblock in effect)