From edward.cherlin.sy.67@aya.yale.edu Wed May 16 12:23:01 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: edward.cherlin.sy.67@aya.yale.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 16 May 2001 19:23:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 12373 invoked from network); 16 May 2001 19:23:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 16 May 2001 19:23:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta6.snfc21.pbi.net) (206.13.28.240) by mta1 with SMTP; 16 May 2001 19:23:00 -0000 Received: from [192.168.0.2] ([216.103.90.93]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9) with ESMTP id <0GDG001EB0GJVT@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 16 May 2001 12:21:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 12:21:52 -0700 Subject: Re: [lojban] Back to the GNOME stuff In-reply-to: X-Sender: cherlin@postoffice.pacbell.net To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" References: From: Edward Cherlin 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 "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)