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

["Sam Gillett" <samgillett@msn.com>]

Randy McLaughlin wrote ...

>"Sam Gillett" <samgillett@msn.com> wrote in message

>> Randy, I would call HTML a computer language, but I'm not sure if I would
>> go so far as to call it a programming language.
>>
>> HTML does little more than display a page without help from scripting
>> languages.  I can create a page with pen and paper, so is the ink in my
>> ballpoint a programming language?
>
>As I have stated many times I am using a rigid (black and white) definition
>of programming.  A pen and paper fails it has no sequence and it has no
>instructions.

Those arguing with you are using a rigid definition also.  White is the
presence of all colors in the visible spectrum.  Black is the absence of any
radiation in the visible spectrum.  There are _millions_ of possible
conditions between.

If I use a pen to draw a flow chart for a program before writing any code,
is that not part of the programming process?

>That is why I keep bringing up an early programming example:
>looms.  The cards that program looms are sequenced and the cards do contain
>instructions.

And these types of looms were in widespread use as recently as 25-30 years
ago.  I agree that they are controlled by a program.  But if following a
rigid sequence of instructions is a requirement for a set of instructions to
be a program... I am afraid most software does not qualify.  The _exact_
sequence of instructions executed by softwqare will vary depending on user
input.  Except, of course, in the case of a simple "Hello world!" program.

>It amuses me that people insist on referring to HTML tags and
>refuse to see that the tags are instructions.  People use the vernacular
>term of programming to exclude everything but C and a few other languages.

If HTML can be considered programming, it is a very primitive form of
programming.  Perhaps not as primitive as the wire jumpers used to program
ENIAC, but still primitive.

>Someone said you can not have a true definition of programming just as
>there is no definition of the sky being blue.  Not true the blue sky can be
>explained to a blind person using mathematical terms and dictionaries have
>the definition of programming.  The blind person may never be able to enjoy
>the beauty of the sky, but colors do have a definition.  They are given in
>angstroms.


There is no black and white (or blue) definition of a blue sky.  The sky is
a different shade of blue at 20,000 feet than at sea level, and many shades
between.

And you may have great difficulty defining programming using a dictionary.
I have looked up programming, and the root word program, in a number of
dictionaries.  Some, but not all, of the definitions agree with your
arguments in this thread.  Other definitions agree with the mindset of those
who argue against you.

A simple wavelength does not give an adequate description of a color.  You
must take intensity into consideration also.  To describe most colors you
need to specify intensity at several points of the visible spectrum.

In my opinion, HTML can only be considered a programming language to the
extent of its ability to call routines in other, higher level, languages.

Best regards,

Sam Gillett aka Mars Probe @ Starship Intrepid 1-972-221-4088
     Last 8-bit BBS in the Dallas area.  Commodore lives!