Yegg

This is exactly what I said, uman disagrees.

big_k105

Yegg, I have done the same thing and I never mean it but the point of the question in that quiz was which one would you even jokingly say isn't a real programming language obviously we all know it is but thats what I was getting at by my post above

__________________
BIG K aka Kyle
Programming Forums
Kyle K Online

Please do not PM or email me programming questions. Post them in the forums instead.

JamesCEdmonds

I have no plans to learn it/them at this time >:{) perhaps in a year or so I'll look into assembly more closer. I think my main goal is to become halfway decent at C++ then while I'm profecting that pick up on some java. After I get good at those two I may try a bit of it but highly dout it, But who knows what the future holds.

__________________
Into the valley of death rode the 600 hundred.

lectricpharaoh

For the record, I think uman was disagreeing with your quoted definition of programming language (the 'you can think in it' bit, probably because machines don't think, at least not yet). I doubt very much he was disagreeing with assembly being a programming language.

__________________
A man's knowledge is like an expanding sphere, the surface corresponding to the boundary between the known and the unknown. As the sphere grows, so does its surface; the more a man learns, the more he realizes how much he does not know. Hence, the most ignorant man thinks he knows it all. - L. Sprague de Camp

Yegg

You apparently did not pay attention to what was going on. Wizard1988 said:

"I think that if you can express your ideas in it and create programs then it is a programming language."

I said that very thing, and I made note of that and also how uman disagreed with me. I said that a language is a tool for thinking in. "express[ing] your ideas" is the result of thinking. Therefore what Paul Graham has said is true. A programming language is a tool for thinking in.

Either both you and uman have no clue what Paul Graham meant, or you are just stupid. I don't know where you got the idea of machines thinking from what I said, and btw, they never will think -- not atleast in the same way humans do.

Note that a programming language is not a computer. The language allows you to think in it, it allows you to express thoughts/ideas by means of code through the use of your mind.

uman

I disagree because a programming language is not a tool for thinking. If you're using a programming language as a tool for thinking, you're using the wrong tool.

A programming language is a language in which instructions for a computer to execute are written. Nothing more, nothing less.

By Mr. Graham's definition, English, French, Spanish and Swahili are all programming languages, as you can use them to think in and express thoughts. You can, to a very limited extent do the same thing in a programming language, but that's certainly not the definition.

If for whatever reason I haven't completely convinced you of Paul Graham's tort, I invite you to debate me further on the subject.

__________________
Few people deserve to be compared to (Rush) Limbaugh, most of them were convicted at the Nuremburg trials.
--WilliamSChips on Slashdot

Yegg

"An artificial language used to write instructions that can be translated into machine language and then executed by a computer."

That is by definition a programming language.

The instructions the definition speaks of are things that we type in. We have to think to perform this. The series of instructions that we find in a source were done as a result of us expressing our ideas.

It is obvious that a programming language is a tool for us to use.

Tool: A device used to do work or perform a task.

Now that we know that a programming language is a tool, we must next understand why it is a tool for thinking in. Remember, the series of instructions that you see in a source were written by a person (one way or another) who used their thoughs to express what they wanted done. The series of instructions represents what they wanted their program to do.

How can a programming language not be considered a tool for thinking in?

Einstein said, "Everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler". His statement should be acknowledged here. The book definition and Paul Graham's definition have the same meaning. Graham's definition is far more simpler and allows us to understand it easier. Someone new to computers would be better off learning the book definition of it, even though both are correct. The second definition would confuse them, but if you work with programming languages then knowing that they are a tool for thinking in should make more sense to you because you know how they work, as opposed to the person who is new to computers and does not, at all, understand what a programming language is.

"By Mr. Graham's definition, English, French, Spanish and Swahili are all programming languages, as you can use them to think in and express thoughts."

So they have the same meaning, what's your point?

uman

All you've proven to me is that it requires thinking to use a programming language. Thus, thinking is a tool for programming, not the other way around. Again, by Mr. Graham's definition, Swahili et. al. are programming languages. You didn't address this point.

__________________
Few people deserve to be compared to (Rush) Limbaugh, most of them were convicted at the Nuremburg trials.
--WilliamSChips on Slashdot

DaWei

It requires thought to use a table-saw properly. It is not a tool for thinking, it is a tool for sawing. Uman is correct: your thinking is fallacious. I would recommend you make a short study of debating techniques, fallacies, etc.

__________________
Abstraction doesn't make it impossible to write bad code; it makes it possible to write superior code.
Contributor's Corner: Grumpy on C++ Exceptions DaWei on Pointers

Yegg

Through what a language offers, it allows you to think in it.

If we can use a tool to think with, and a language is just this, why are programming languages not tools for thinking in?