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

["Kelly Hall" <hall@priest.com>]

"wildstar" <wildstar128@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93A0B205C992Cwildstar128hotmailco@216.168.3.44...
> Alot of pushing the language outside its design purpose. One can do alot
> but still is quite limited and it is in these limitations that defines
> what is a Programming language and what is just a computer language for a
> different purpose. Programming languages are computer languages designed
> for creation of programs and therefore is designed with internal features
> such as variable handling to enable the creation of a program not alot of
> snapshot images that are just simply sequenced together to give the
> illusion.

I agree with you, and you'll find more about it up this thread quite a ways.

To me, a "computer programming language" must be sufficient for describing
computation.  And a "computation" being something that is equivalent to what
you can do with a Turing machine.  By these definitions, HTML is clearly not
a "computer programming language".  However, no one in the world cites me as
a reference. let alone one as reknowned as Messers Merriam and Webster, so
it's not surprising other people here disagree with my opinions regarding
HTML.  Fine.  So be it.  I'd be concerned if everyone *did* agree with me -
it would offend my delicate curmudgeonly sensibilities, carefully honed
during a lifetime.

As a degenerative example, I imagine that HTML would be just as effective as
a markup language assuming that the layout engine was an ink-stained,
visor-wearing printer with a tray of type and a simple non-offset press, and
the transmission mechanism was a transcontinental teletype, assuming you
could add double quotes and angle-brackets to morse code.  However, in this
case it's obvious that computers aren't required.

Kelly