--61jdw2sOBCFtR2d/
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 03:38:23PM +0900, Kevin wrote:
> That is all well and good. But does that fact make the definitions I am
> using incorrect in any way?

It does not make them incorrect definitions.  It does, however, pertain
to this specific context, whereas the definitions you identified do not
pertain to this specific context that way.


>
> Does it necessarily make the suggestion that excel is a programming
> language incorrect?

You *just* shot your argument in the foot.  You said "programming
language" which, in the specific, is not the same as "language" in the
generic.  By saying "programming language", you have confined your usage
of "language" to the particular case of definition 12, thus excluding the
generalities of definitions three, four, five, and seven.  It's like the
difference between "card" and "greeting card", where referring to the
latter, more specific usage of card excludes the ace of spades, my
busines cards, and a 3x5 notecard with notes on it related to some kind
of eXtreme Programming construct.

Even if you did not exclude them, though, they do not really apply to
your usage except by bending them so far out of shape as to render them
almost meaningless.


>
> Someone posted a link to an animation done in Excel (I've seen
> something similar in the past.), is that not giving instructions to a
> computer as per definition twelve?

No, not really.

Is pushing the power button on my laptop not giving instructions to a
computer?  What about pressing the J key while typing this sentence?  You
might as well call the power button and the keyboard "programming
languages" the way you're trying to define the term.  The whole problem
with your approach to using the terms "language" in general and
"programming language" in particular is that you are hand-waving away any
specificity and context of meaning and usage, stretching the terms into
such generic, all-encompassing shapes as to strip them of any substantive
meaning at all.  By the time you're done, we'll probably be able to
define death as a programming language.

Is not the fact of brain death, which causes the EEG to change its
behavior, not instructions given to a computer, making it a programming
language by your hopelessly inclusive "definition"?

(Scare quotes used here because I'm stretching the definition of
"definition" just to accomodate the way you define things.)


>
> Heck if you were to speak to a computer using English you could give
> instructions to a computer.  As voice recognition technology gets
> better and hopefully cheaper people who are not great at typing may do
> just that in order to create programs that would be no different from
> the ones we type currently.

If we get to the point where all communication with computers is done via
natural language, that will not make English a programming language.
That will make the communication process no longer "programming".

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]

--61jdw2sOBCFtR2d/
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAk2l7BsACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKUoewCg5at1cGtmqwjW7YqIgpUrQF26
aQIAoL/RrxNxz4P17FET8RprunBwtzHu
bm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--61jdw2sOBCFtR2d/--