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

["Really" <barryem@yahoo.com>]

"Randy McLaughlin" <randy@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:g8lIa.14012$Gt4.236@fe08.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> This is the third time I am posting two definitions of
programming:
>
> "6. A set of coded instructions that enables a machine,
especially a
> computer, to perform a desired sequence of operations. 7. An
instruction
> sequence in programmed instruction."
>
> It does not matter what anyone individually believes is
programming these
> are two definitions directly from a dictionary:
>
> http://www.bartleby.com/61/54/P0585400.html
>
> HTML is an instruction sequence in programmed instruction.
>
> HTML is a limited computer language one of the millions of
features it does
> not have is inline assembly language, just out of curiosity how
do you do
> inline assembly language in ADA or Cobol?

Of course it matters.  If nobody believes it then the dictionary is
wrong.  Dictionaries have been wrong before.  In a definition of
something as loosely used in so many different ways as
"programming' it would be a miracle if they're right.  Dictionaries
report usage as they see it.  They don't establish usage.

My roommate when I was in college wrote a letter to Webster
explaining that they're referring to "junta" as a synonym for
"camarillo" was incorrect according to their own definitions.  They
replied saying they disagreed and wished him a successful career as
a lexographer when he grew up.

This made him angry so he wrote a very careful and detailed
explanation of his reasoning.  They replied that they decided he
was right and that it would be changed in the next edition.  Last
time I was over there he still had those framed letters on his
wall.  He was right.  The dictionary was wrong and they admitted
it.

Barry