Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages

On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 13:38:04 -0000 (UTC)
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) boring babbled:

In article <veiki1$14g6h$1@dont-email.me>,  <Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org> wrote:

On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 20:15:45 -0000 (UTC)
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) boring babbled:

Oh really?  Is that why they call it "machine language"?  It's
even in the dictionary with "machine code" as a synonymn:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/machine%20language

>
Its not a programming language.

>
That's news to those people who have, and sometimes still do,
write programs in it.

Really? So if its a language you'll be able to understand this then:

0011101011010101010001110101010010110110001110010100101001010100
0101001010010010100101010111001010100110100111010101010101010101
0001110100011101010001001010110011100010101001110010100101100010

But that's not important.  If we go back and look at what I

Oh right.

>
|No.  It translates one computer _language_ to another computer
|_language_.  In the usual case, that's from a textual source
>
Note that I said, "computer language", not "programming
language".  Being a human-readable language is not a requirement
for a computer language.

Oh watch those goalpost moves with pedant set to 11. Presumably you
think the values of the address lines is a language too.

Your claim that "machine language" is not a "language" is simply
not true.  Your claim that a "proper" compiler must take the
shape you are pushing is also not true.

If you say so.