Speaking as a Fancy Computer Science Professor at a Fancy Institution of Higher Education who teaches the course on Programming Languages:
-
@nikclayton
I misinferred the sarcasm. Apologies! We seem to be on the same page here, very much so. -
@dpnash @inthehands @nikclayton exactly this.
And removing this from “modern” word processing tools I think was a deep mistake. It makes the whole fixing formatting a point and click nightmare
-
@inthehands I am still partially agreeing with you.
I've referred to spreadsheet gurus as the largest stealth group of functional programmers in the world.But conversely, if you're defining virtually any interaction with a microprocessor as programming, then the word means everything, and thus nothing. There is a qualitative difference between writing C++ or CSS and playing win-solitaire. How to capture that if not the word "programming"?
-
@inthehands @Crell probably worththile at this point to resurrect https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNjxe8ShM-8
-
@Crell
Please study the thread’s invitation to think of this term as a continuum, a quality that some activity may possess in greater or lesser quantity, rather than a boundary with an inside and an outside -
@thinkMoult @Crell
This video never gets old.Also in the same general spirit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP5-iIeKXE8
-
@inthehands @vkc personally, I'd consider "programming" the intention to formulate an algorithm (yes I study CS at a uni with a strong focus on theory how could you tell?)
However, in this context, it's hardly relevant: when you take away an asshole's argument, they're just gonna find a new one. And if someone says "HTML isn't programming" with the intent to belittle someone, they're just an asshole and need to be told so. -
@inthehands @vkc additionally: Java is interpreted by the JVM and therefore a scripting language, while Perl is compiled and thus a """real""" programming language. Tell that the next person who tries to belittle "scripting languages".
-
@datarama @inthehands functional languages are not Turing complete? Do you have a link explaining that?
-
@mdione @inthehands *Total* functional languages, specifically, aren't.
(If you only allow total functions in your language, then all functions must be terminating.)
-
@mdione @inthehands As a little personal footnote to this: Reading about total functional programming and experimenting a bit with implementation was one of the things that gave me an appreciation for how very difficult it is to design a language that is non-Turing-complete while also being actually useful.
-
@qsx
(Java is compiled too — JIT-compiled, yes, but it does run as native machine code — unless you disable the JIT compiler and force the JVM to interpret it. But I like the larger spirit of your heckle!)
