opening a text document to show a .txt file through a browserlink
d_blade8 at hotmail.com
Fri Jan 3 00:20:07 CET 2003
Jacek Generowicz <jacek.generowicz at cern.ch> wrote in message news:<tyfd6nhdikf.fsf at lxplus047.cern.ch>...
> d_blade8 at hotmail.com (Lemniscate) writes:
> > If one wants to ignore mark-up languages (XML and/or HTML) because
> > they are just data acted on by an interpreter, than C/C++ falls into
> > the same area.
> Write an HTML program that computes the square of a number that it
> receives as input.
> Turing-complete-ly yours,
On a purely practical level, it is impossible to define something by
exclusion when a definition is lacking. That is, one cannot say that
since object A cannot perform action B, then object A is not a type of
object C if object C is not defined.
Having said that, do we agree on the definition of a programming
language as "able to compute the square of a number without the
assistance of accessory languages"? [I added the last part because it
is ridiculously easy to compute the square root if we start using
html, so I excluded them).] If that is our definition of programming,
then HTML is not a language. However, I have yet to see that
definition applied. In other words, I think your point is pointless.
Heck, write a C program that doesn't use a compiler, makes its own
operating system and builds a computer using nothing but toilet paper
rolls. What? You can't? Then, by your logic, C is not a programming
language because I asked you to do something that it can't do.
I don't mean to attack you, as I do see your point, but, as I've said,
you can't exclude something unless there is a defined object to
exclude from. I say this also because there has been a ton of talk
about what is 'intuitive' (which, incidently, is also an opinion,
nothing more and nothing less).
Since this is getting crazy, from now on, I am going to go by the
definition of program as given on
(excerpt) 'a program is a specific set of ordered operations for a
computer to perform...(Note that a program is also a special kind of
"data" that tells how to operate on "application or user data.") '
Okay, to me, based on this,
are all programming languages. The 'mark-up' languages represent a
specific set of ordered operation for a computer to perform (and thus,
represent a program; which feels really odd to say, to be quite
honest). Since a program can also be 'data', then it fits the
definition both ways. It's interesting to note that the definition
1) specify whether anything has to be Turing complete (heck, I've
written tons of programs that aren't, but they use python and C, so
are python and c not languages too>)
2) specify the need for the ability to calculate any numbers at all.
(once again, I would say 99% of all my codes doesn't calculate
squares, are they not programs).
FYI, the reason I hark on the whole calculating the square thing is
that I believe it is a misleading and irrelevant statement. The W3C
can render it obsolete by allowing html to contain and operate on it's
own variables without the aid of a scripting language. The argument
would have been more persuasive to me if the author had stated that
he/she believed that all programming languages need to have the
ability to calculate squares for him/her to feel it was a real
language (that would be a statement of opinion, not some kind of
challenge meant to imply what they thought; of course, he/she would
still be guilty of reaching an illogical conclusion (the ability to
square numbers does not a programming language define), but I would
have respected the opinion. Anyways, this is opinion on everything.
Feel free to disagree, I do (;-D).
More information about the Python-list