Subject: Re: [lojban] Back to the GNOME stuff

From: Edward Cherlin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 12:21:52 -0700

At 3:27 AM -0400 5/16/01, Value Yourself wrote:
>On Wed, 16 May 2001, Edward Cherlin wrote:
>
>
>> Fine. Now what about an APL interpreter, or the inner and outer
>> interpreters in FORTH, a hardware interpreter for microcode or a
>> hardware compiler translating source code to wiring lists and
>> diagrams? What about systems that offer to run the same source code
>> through a selection of processes, including interpretation,
>> just-in-time compilation, virtual machine compilation with emulation
>> (byte code interpretation), cross-compilation, or any of the other
>> alternatives? What about translation from one language to another? I
>> can cite APL-to-C, APL-to-Ada, C-to-PostScript, FORTRAN to Ratfor,

Sorry, I meant to write "Ratfor to FORTRAN", but it turns out that I 
was correct by accident.

"...the program Struct...converts arbitrary Fortran programs into Ratfor."
http://studenti.ing.unipi.it/doc/7thEdManVol2/ratfor/ratfor-4.html

> > and an assortment of other such translators used for serious work.
>
>Let's be careful not to overspecify these terms in order to respect
>differences in a field that changes radically each decade.

That's exactly what I was suggesting. The proposed definition 
overspecifies "source code" by assuming that it is to be compiled to 
machine language. I think "program text" is better suited to be the 
defining metaphor.

>Some of these
>things you mention here are already obsolete and not even 40 years old.

As far as I know, every one of them is in current use. Which would 
you consider obsolete?

>(No, I'm not going to entertain a religious war about any of them) We
>should be aiming for concepts that will endure at least a few more
>decades, yes?

My point exactly.

>Now, do we want to divide the reality into concepts different than the
>ones invented by the Silicon Valley people?

Very probably. At least we want to specify the correct places in the 
relations, which they haven't done.

>It might be interesting to do
>that. However if we don't, then why not import the whole list of words
>like
>
>
>> process, which may invoke a preprocessor, assembler, optimizer,
>> linker, loader....
>
>
>as fu'ivla?

Go ahead. But that was not what I was asking for. I just want our 
term for "source code" to include specification of a 
translation/execution process in its place structure. Then we can 
discuss what the "usual" value should be.

>------

All your place are belong to us.

>1.Why are you measuring the measure? The measure is the same. Even after
>Great One, the bones will be broken. I am telling you. Relic should 
>believe me.

What you say!

>2.Where after religion you believe in religion and wish that to Ora.
>Emptiness is that what Baby God's Eye is fighting for.

Launch all Zig for great justice! Set up us the bomb!

-- 

Edward Cherlin, Spamfighter <http://www.cauce.org>
"It isn't what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you know for
certain that just ain't so."--Mark Twain, Josh Billings, Edwin Howard
Armstrong, Will Rogers, Satchel Paige (after Thomas Jefferson)