From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10a146,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,8775b19e3c68a5dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 1094ba,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1094ba,public X-Google-Thread: fa0ae,a03ae7f4e53958e1 X-Google-Attributes: gidfa0ae,public From: fred@genesis.demon.co.uk (Lawrence Kirby) Subject: Re: Which language pays most? Smalltalk, not C++ nor Java. Date: 1998/01/03 Message-ID: <883859856snz@genesis.demon.co.uk> X-Deja-AN: 312509642 References: <01bd14b4$dc6f6a80$6428b4cf@carla.ici.net> X-Mail2News-User: fred@genesis.demon.co.uk X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Mail2News-Path: genesis.demon.co.uk X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 883866008 22366 fred genesis.demon.co.uk Organization: none Reply-To: fred@genesis.demon.co.uk Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.perl.misc,comp.lang.ada,comp.edu Date: 1998-01-03T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <01bd14b4$dc6f6a80$6428b4cf@carla.ici.net> carla@ici.net "Alicia Carla Longstreet" writes: >Robert Dewar wrote: >: John says > >: <: preprocessor+compiler+linker+etc, as some have it... >: I am forbidden by a piece of paper from calling a function 'memfoo'! > >: Of course the answer is that the language is defined by the standard. >What >: is surprising is your exclamation mark at the end of a statement that >should >: be common understanding for any programmer. > >Only programmers who have no concept of what a language, any language is. On the contrary programmers are one of the few groups of people who have the opportunity to understand a language right down to the fundamentals. There are many different forms of communication that have to be considered. >Even if the Standard does define the language, it only did so on the day >the standard was finalized. The standard's job is to define the language. It does so until it is supplanted by a newer standard. > Languages, even programming language, evolve >and change over time. Sure, however standardised languages change in infrequent large steps rather than in incrementally in small steps. > A Standards document can never be a current >definition of a language, only the definition of the language at some point >in the past. C89 (with minor addenda) is the definition of the C language in 1998. Actually by your argument C89 was never the definiton of the C language, certainly not when it was ratified in 1989 when no compiler supported it. > Even so, the ANSI/ISO Standards defining C only define the >common core of the C language. When C9X is finalized, at that moment it >will define the core of the C programming language. By the time it is >actually published and distributed the language will have changed to a >small extent. You're not being consistent here. What has happened in that time period to make it less definitive? If anything more compilers will support it (which seems to be the basis of you take as the definition of the C language). >: Of course the language is not defined by the compiler, or any combination >: of tools. This is nothing new, languages have been defined by standards >: for a very long time. C came rather late to the standards business, but >: even before the ANSI C standard was approved, C was defined by pieces >: of paper, including for example the reference manual at the back of K&R. > >Keep on dreaming. No language, ever, can be defined by a piece of paper. You'd be amazed then how many are. >Unless it is a dead language that is no longer used and therefore no longer >changes. This concept is simply impossible. Strange, I write a lot of code using C90 as my reference. It doesn't look dead to me. >: For anyone to think that a language is usefully defined by a compiler is >: to me evidence of poor training. No one should be able to get out of any >: CS degree program with this kind of misconception. > >This is true. The language is defined by usage (*All* languages are >defined by usage). You're confusing natural and technical languages again. Even in natural languages a lot of the language is defined by dictionaries and accepted grammar rules. >: However, as I said in my earlier message, I am afraid that this confusion >: is a very common one and is responsible for a huge percentage of the >problems >: in porting code, regardless of the language. > >Yes it is important to understand the each compiler may represent a >different dialect of the C language, one that may or may not be compatible >with any other specific compiler. Again, C is not a natural language. >: If your only knowledge of the definition of a language comes from what >you >: find is accepted by your compiler, you can be sure that your code is >unlikely >: to be anywhere as near portable as it should be. > >True. Too many programmers learn from BASIC where there is almost no >cross-platform or even cross-compiler/interpreter compatibility. It is >difficult to impress students with the need to write portably with a >language that is not portable. About as effective as your father telling >you not to smoke in between drags on his cigarette. Just another reason >not to use BASIC as a teaching tool (unless you are teaching how to make >spagetti). Much of the problem stems from people trying to apply the name BASIC to a set of mostly incompatible languages with a common core (albeit rather small). If you tell me a program is written in BASIC it tells me very little about the program so it isn't a very useful description. -- ----------------------------------------- Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com -----------------------------------------