Sean Barker> "I have long taken the view that the primary concern of a
programming
language is to communicate between people - a way of formally describing
what we expect the computer to do and the rationale for that
description. Most programming is about checking the rationale,
correcting errors in the description and then reusing old work in
changing circumstances. If this wasn't the case, why don't we just pipe
the instructions directly to a compiler, rather than to a file? Its only
the end user that cares whether the program makes the computer do
something. I appreciate that this is not a mainstream view." (01)
This may be a stretch which will break this thread utterly but I'm
sympathetic with your view. As they've evolved, computers have become less
and less concerned with calculation and computation in the narrow senses
that programmers have tended to think of those processes. I think of
programming languages as writing systems and of computers as symbolic or
information processing machines. So I think of information as the content of
communications, in an exchange of messages between senders and receivers
(the end users) - a definition which needs some clarification. But the
primary use of symbolic communication is between humans, and computers are
used to facilitate (or obscure) that purpose. (02)
I notice that Wikipedia has some glosses on writing systems, pictography,
and the like. (03)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing_system (04)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictogram (05)
I mention pictography because computers have become more and more graphical,
in use. In particular, I'd mention engineering applications like CAD
drawings and the programming languages which construct and use these. In
such applications, these programming languages are focused on presenting
information to users in ways which directly depend upon the user's own
visual processing capabilities. And, if I may pun, programming the Internet,
in particular, is more and more resembling television programming, what with
all the video and graphical elements that are being used. (06)
Cheers,
Jay (07)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barker, Sean (UK)" <Sean.Barker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <edbark@xxxxxxxx>; "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 2:46 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] C and Ada (was: Please thread the discussion) (08)
>
>
> This mail is publicly posted to a distribution list as part of a process
> of public discussion, any automatically generated statements to the
> contrary non-withstanding. It is the opinion of the author, and does not
> represent an official company view.
>
>> Sean said:
>> >> My impression was that Ada was Pascal++,
>>
>> Jean Ichbiah (designer of Ada) would be horrified.
>
> The comment was based on the way the Stoneman and Ironman proposals that
> eventually became Ada were based on submissions that started from
> Pascal, rather than any of the alternative approaches - see next
> comment.
>
>> Randy said:
>> > There is virtually nothing in common between FORTRAN and C.
>>
>> Spot on. Certainly there is almost no common thinking in the
>> intent of the languages.
>>
>
> This comment was based on classifying algorithmic languages into those
> such as Algol and Pascal which use recursive abstraction, and those such
> as FORTRAN and C, which are essentially "flat", and the corresponding
> observation that the programmers I worked with preferred either a
> recursive or a "flat" style of programming. Consequently, when they
> programmed in the "opposite" language, they complained about the
> features that stopped them programming in the way they preferred. I
> found that learning C required the same approach to programming as
> FORTRAN, while Pascal required the same approach as Algol.
>
>>> > As to
>> > your "jaundiced view," little could be further from the
>> truth. C is a
>> > challenging language to program in owing to its very low-level
>> > formalisms
>
> Again, my comment was from the point of view of the psychology of
> programmers. Classification is viewpoint specific - I should have made
> my viewpoint a little clearer.
>
> I have long taken the view that the primary concern of a programming
> language is to communicate between people - a way of formally describing
> what we expect the computer to do and the rationale for that
> description. Most programming is about checking the rationale,
> correcting errors in the description and then reusing old work in
> changing circumstances. If this wasn't the case, why don't we just pipe
> the instructions directly to a compiler, rather than to a file? Its only
> the end user that cares whether the program makes the computer do
> something. I appreciate that this is not a mainstream view.
>
> Sean Barker
> Bristol, UK
>
> (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (010)
|