Off Topic: metaphor in programming languages?

[xod <xod@bway.net>]

On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Christopher Palmer wrote:

> From: Christopher Palmer <reid@pconline.com>
> 
> On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, xod wrote:
> 
> > > Show me a language that *doesn't* rely heavily on metaphor, and I'll
> > > show you a proglang. :^)
> > 
> > Every library call is a metaphor.
> 
> Not so. Libraries are additions to the 'dictionary' of primitive 
> functions; they are lexical, not metaphoric.


If I say to you "a stitch in time...", you know what I mean. I didn't make
it explicit in my text; it was commonly understood.

If I use a library call to process a JPEG, the reader of the source code,
whether human or compiler, knows what I mean. I didn't make it explicit in
my source; it was commonly understood.


> The lexicon is built up from primitives not by analogy with
> (prog)linguistic extra-(prog)linguistic context, but by the direct logical
> consequences of the primitves themselves. Metaphor is inherently tied to
> context, and proglangs are by design context-independent.


Everything is context-independent if your scope is broad enough. There is
only one universe, and it only happens once. Where do you choose to draw
your dotted lines?




-----
How's my typing? 1 (800) 243-6624