A.C.T.- Sunday, March 21, 2004, 10:34:13 AM, you wrote:
ACT> absolutely. It is just what I tried to explain: A programming language ACT> IS NOT a human language, but Transcript is "somewhat English", more than Exactly. ACT> dialect makes things easy. Coming from a different development ACT> environment makes things more complicated than necessary. ACT> I explained my background as having "coded" in Machine Language (hex ACT> codes only). That wasn't English - at all. It was more like "Latin" Nitpicking note - hex codes aren't machine language either. All the CPU understands is ones and zeros. Hex codes are just another way of making the CPU's language more human-readable. Working your way up, assembly language and higher-level languages such as C and Transcript were designed to insulate the programmer from having to deal with the drudgery of the low-level coding and thus increase programmer productivity by allowing the coder to concentrate on the program itself rather than on the infrastructure. IMO this is a Good Thing. ACT> explaining TO A HUMAN BEING what I intend to do. That goal is to make ACT> the computer do what I want it to. <g> If you ever figure that one out, be sure to let us know. Somehow computers always do what I tell them to do instead. </g> ACT> Any influence that makes the interaction between the developer (and his ACT> staff) and the machine unprecise has to be avoided. Introducing "human ACT> interactive components" like "sentence structures" are distractions, ACT> they don't enforce the goal that is to be reached. They _do_ have their <g> Careful - you're starting to make an argument for postfix notation here. </g> -- -Mark Wieder [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
