[PD] "Scripting languages" ?

[Pedro Lopes]

>It can explain a lot of things... especially the big mess made with words
like "technology" and "art".
That is the true (very annoying/unfair) misconception that I live daily.

Best regards,
Pedro

On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Mathieu Bouchard <matju at artengine.ca>wrote:

> On Sun, 23 May 2010, Pedro Lopes wrote:
>
>  Its just definitions that get caught up in "trends". There's a perfect
>> portuguese idiomatic expression for that, that would loosely translate into
>> "mouth-to-mouth definitions" - whereas a concept gets standardized without
>> any formal foundations or efforts but because of heavy community use
>>
>
> That's an important concept and I am glad that you wrote it down.
>
> It can explain a lot of things... especially the big mess made with words
> like "technology" and "art".
>
>
>  As for pseudo-code, when in first years of college that really striked me.
>> The definition of it was supposed to strive for a language-free syntax, but
>> it always looked C to me - so I guess that's true for your argument as
>> "political bargain".
>>
>
> Well, to be more complete, there are other varieties of pseudo-code with
> different syntaxes, which led an undergrad student to tell me that Python is
> executable pseudo-code. AFAIR, the indentation syntax of Python comes from a
> certain variety of pseudo-code that already existed. In general, pseudo-code
> also has an aim of being more abstract and concise than actual C/PASCAL
> code, which is often the goal of "scripting languages".
>
> That was a few years after a fellow undergrad student (at a different
> university) told me, very lucidly : « Now I understand what is pseudo-code.
> It's code that doesn't work » (loosely translated from French). That's
> because pseudo-code is designed to be non-runnable.
>
>
>  The article I quote was not showing a correct view but more like "where
>> does this "trend" comes from"... (and by trend I mean the segmentation/naive
>> classification of scripting langs vs. others).
>>
>
> ah ok.
>
>
>  >LISP is a traditional language that is interpreted, yet became quite
>> compiled as an option. It's quite
>> Of course, I use compiled LISP on a regular basis :)
>>
>
> But I mean that LISP was interpreted in its original implementation. (this
> postdates the original LISP spec by a few years, which was designed as a
> spec for a special-purpose pseudo-code. against the will of the author, his
> students turned LISP into a runnable language and made it possibly the first
> interpreted language ever...)
>
> LISP is also quite hard to classify in one bucket of languages. You can use
> it as a test of adequacy of a language classification : where do you put
> LISP in it, and why ? Thus it's also a great way to destroy unnecessary
> distinctions in how we call the languages, which is why I mention it.
>
>
>  its nice nice to share some feelings/opinions on this subject, I strongly
>> feel that it has become a "buzz" word, rather than something people have
>> strongly defined
>>
>
> the concept of buzzword isn't opposed to strongly-defined concepts, but the
> process of "buzzing" does add a layer of connotations and myth around the
> core concept, in a way that can be quite misleading. with great
> popularisation of a concept, comes a great misunderstanding of the concept.
> It isn't as bad a hype, though, because mouth-to-mouth definitions are still
> more accurate than anything designed by a salesman with the only goal of
> making a product (or service) look good.
>
>
>  I was saying (and thinking): "When you are scripting you are programming,
>> and vice versa" - so where's the line separating scripting/programming
>> languages? Is there any need for a line? Do we gain to have such
>> differentiation? Define them... and so on.
>>
>
> ah, alright.
>
>
>  _ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
> | Mathieu Bouchard, Montréal, Québec. téléphone: +1.514.383.3801
>



-- 
Pedro Lopes
contacto: jazz at radiozero.pt
website: http://web.ist.utl.pt/Pedro.Lopes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20100523/4e91915c/attachment.htm>