←2003-07-08 2003-07-09 2003-07-10β†’ ↑2003 ↑all
00:12:07 -!- Navigator has joined.
00:12:12 <Navigator> werd.
00:12:41 <Taaus> Word up, y'all.
00:25:09 -!- Navigator has changed nick to Andreou.
00:26:19 <Taaus> Andreou in the hizouse.
02:11:43 -!- lament has joined.
03:00:06 <Taaus> lament: You consider HQ9+ to be a programming language, then?
03:00:20 <lament> Taaus: Yes.
03:00:24 <Taaus> Ok.
03:00:32 <lament> Taaus: Also my programming language I sent to the esolang a year ago
03:00:46 <lament> that converted every line of input from <foo> into "Hello, <foo>!"
03:01:05 <lament> I believe nobody objected there :)
03:01:54 <Taaus> How about a language that has the implementation 'int main(void) { return 0; }'? A true NULL language. :)
03:03:14 <Taaus> (In C, naturally)
03:03:23 <lament> hehe.
03:03:30 <lament> yes, that works too.
03:03:31 <Andreou> tur-in-complete.
03:03:43 <lament> Of course, it has no programs.
03:04:03 <lament> I rather like the language with just one instruction, "nop"
03:04:05 <Andreou> programming language is defined as?
03:04:06 <Taaus> Well, that's just dandy... That means pretty much everything is a programming language...
03:04:21 <lament> It's special because it doesn't need an implementation
03:04:22 <Andreou> lament no, if the interpreter takes no input, there can be no programs, not even NOP programs.
03:04:25 <lament> its programs run themselves
03:04:37 <lament> Andreou: yes, i'm talking of a different language.
03:05:11 <lament> Andreou: the best definition of 'programming language' i know of is 'a formal method for definition of a class of machines'
03:05:19 <Taaus> You've successfully made a definition that's useless. Have you considered working on a standards committee?
03:05:24 <lament> where a machine is something that can change state, e.g. operate
03:05:32 <lament> taaus: it is not useless
03:05:41 <Andreou> hahahahah
03:05:53 <Taaus> Oh?
03:06:16 <lament> Taaus: well, perhaps it is, so give me a better one!
03:06:24 <Taaus> Teehee.
03:06:31 <lament> I'm perfectly content with this one, though
03:08:39 <lament> If you really insist, I can say "non-empty class of machines" instead
03:10:48 <Taaus> Well, I still don't think it's a good definition... It certainly isn't intuitive... The problem is that HTML "programs" are constant, in a sense. They'll always produce the same output when run on a specific interpreter.
03:11:13 <lament> i thought that would be a good thing :)
03:11:29 <lament> Have you looked at _code?
03:11:36 <lament> Or, hell, postscript?
03:11:46 <Taaus> Sure.
03:11:55 <lament> would you say they're not programming languages?
03:12:02 <lament> they're turing complete.
03:12:06 <lament> they don't have input.
03:12:08 <Taaus> The thing is... _All_ HTML programs are constant. That's not so for Postscript.
03:12:30 <lament> well, it's true for _code, which is turing complete
03:12:41 <Taaus> I'm not familiar with _code. Got a link?
03:12:42 <lament> and it's true for Zot where input is a part of the program
03:12:57 <lament> and for Iota and Jot that don't have input
03:13:29 <lament> sorry, no link for _code
03:14:05 <lament> but here's 99 bottles of beer in it
03:14:09 <lament> [1green bottle][2hanging on the wall.\n][3`#`$# 1$, 2''][4`Q`Z`q`z3(Q)(Z)3(Q
03:14:09 <lament> )(Z)And if one 1 should accidentally fall,\nThere\'d be 3(q)(z)\n''''][6`A`a
03:14:09 <lament> `s`Q`B`b`z4(A)(s)(b)(z)Q(B)(b)(z)'''''''][+(s)(6)]6(Ten)(ten)+(Nine)(nine)+(
03:14:09 <lament> Eight)(eight)+(Seven)(seven)+(Six)(six)+(Five)(five)+(Four)(four)+(Three)(th
03:14:09 <lament> ree)+(Two)(two)+(One)(one)()(`X`Y`Z''')()(no)(s)
03:14:46 <lament> It's a language that was intended to replace geek code
03:14:55 <Taaus> Ah, yes... It's all coming back now.
03:18:09 <Taaus> There must be some way to define the difference between _code and what you might call the "cat" programming language. (I.e. the language that just returns whatever input it's given)
03:18:50 <lament> well, _code is turing-complete.
03:19:24 <lament> but that seems to be irrelevant.
03:19:30 <lament> If you cut HTML does it not bleed?
03:19:41 <Taaus> Lets try.
03:20:59 * Taaus briefly wonders if the inclusion of <BLINK> and <MARQUEE> tags makes a difference
03:24:33 <Taaus> Remind me again why TC isn't a good measure of whether or not a language is a programming language or not.
03:25:08 <lament> Because of the arbitrarily big memory requirement for turing-completeness.
03:25:22 <Taaus> Languages don't have memory requirements...
03:25:27 <lament> Brainfuck does!
03:25:37 <Taaus> Then Brainfuck isn't a language.
03:25:50 <Taaus> A programming language, that is.
03:25:55 <Taaus> It's just a glorified markup language, then.
03:26:14 <lament> haha.
03:26:36 <lament> Even though it's capable of an arbitrarily large subset of turing-complete programs
03:26:54 <lament> (the brainfuck family)
03:27:03 * Taaus smiles and nods
03:27:22 <lament> Serves it right!
03:27:44 <lament> There're probably other languages that have memory requirements.
03:27:54 <lament> Assemblies.
03:28:35 <Taaus> Possibly. That doesn't change anything, though.
03:29:20 <lament> anyway, any definition of programming languages which excludes brainfuck is morally wrong.
03:29:57 <Taaus> Not really... Brainfuck with limited memory can't execute all the programs a Turing Machine can.
03:30:09 <Taaus> Brainfuck _without_ limited memory is a programming language. No contest there.
03:31:13 <lament> hm, we could call limited-memory languages "computers" :)
03:31:37 <Taaus> Hehe, sure. :)
03:32:10 <lament> That would confuse the hell out of everybody.
03:32:29 <lament> Yay esoteric.
03:32:35 <Taaus> Well... That's the whole point of existence, innit?
03:33:44 <lament> And BEST!
03:33:53 <lament> It can even calculate prime numbers
03:33:56 -!- Taaus has set topic: This just in: HTML solves the halting problem! Millions rejoice!.
03:33:59 <lament> but is not turing complete :(
03:34:18 <lament> And malbolge!
03:34:23 <lament> And hq9+!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
03:34:35 <Taaus> This reminds me of Floop, Bloop and Gloop from GEB.
03:35:43 <lament> I haven't read that.
03:35:46 <lament> Should I?
03:35:56 <Taaus> I'd recommend it.
03:36:14 <lament> hm.
03:36:28 <Taaus> He defines three different languages (with the aforementioned names) one of them isn't TC, but it is able to emulate anything one of the other TC languages can do.
03:37:19 <Taaus> I think Bloop has only got constant for-loops, whereas Floop has while-loops. If you put in a large enough constant, then Bloop is nearly as powerful as Floop.
03:37:54 <lament> GEB sounds like something i really have to read, which is why I don't.
03:38:02 <Taaus> Heh.
03:38:39 -!- Andreou has quit ("Adios.").
03:43:31 <lament> Perhaps I should read it anyway.
03:43:46 <Taaus> I bet it wouldn't hurt ;)
03:44:42 <lament> I probably know everything it says. Which is bad because I should've just read it instead of all that other stuff!
03:54:56 -!- dbc has joined.
03:56:15 <lament> dbc: see log!
03:56:59 <dbc> I'm reading it.
04:02:03 <lament> hehe, I like this /. comment about the complexity of computer jargon
04:02:12 <lament> You're absolutely right. Instead of saying "megahertz," we should say "three billion individual operations every second." Instead of "MP3 file," we should say "pirated Metallica songs." Instead of "Bluetooth," we should say "magic."
04:02:44 <dbc> I want to approach the definition problem another way, to make it match the common usage of the phrase "programming language" better.
04:03:07 <dbc> I want to start out by saying a programming language is a language you can use to tell a computer to do things...
04:04:05 <lament> that's the part where I beat you with a stick.
04:04:16 <lament> But do go on :)
04:05:29 <dbc> And add a few refinements. Specifically, I would say you can use it to tell a computer to do several different possible things; this rules out null languages and those that always do exactly the same thing. Your language that outputs "Hello, <input>!" is right in the borderline.
04:06:44 <dbc> And also, a strong connotation of "program" is that you can give the computer a reasonably long list of things to do, and after you finish giving it the list it will go ahead and do all of them, rather than you having to tell it things one at a time.
04:07:14 <lament> Any definition which involves "computer" is evil, though.
04:08:03 <lament> Otherwise, your definition is pretty much the same as mine.
04:08:27 <dbc> Okay. I think the answer there is to broaden the definition of "computer", not to stop using it.
04:09:16 <lament> is turing machine a computer?
04:09:41 <dbc> And I wouldn't broaden it too far. Stack machines are fine, but a four-function calculator isn't. Again, I'm trying to match common usage, which doesn't speak of "programming" anything very different from a computer...
04:09:54 <dbc> A Turing machine is a computer, yes.
04:10:26 <dbc> That is, a real Turing machine.
04:10:49 <lament> I think you just reduced the problem to an equally complex related problem.
04:11:07 <lament> Sorta like compiling Brainfuck to Ook.
04:11:10 <dbc> What, defining "computer"?
04:11:28 <lament> Yes.
04:11:54 <dbc> Well, that's to be expected. There isn't going to be a neat mathematical formulation that matches common usage.
04:12:47 <dbc> By common usage, lots of things count as "programming languages" that aren't Turing-complete even if you neglect the unlimitedspace requirement.
04:12:55 <lament> But common usage is evil.
04:13:19 <lament> In common usage, somebody says "HTML is a programming language, i learned it at school", and the response is "FUCK YOU!" *ban*
04:13:23 <dbc> If common usage is evil, then common words are evil. Rather than try to make a fresh definition of the phrase "programming language", just stop using it.
04:14:25 <dbc> Which is indeed a good policy, for lots of words, but I don't have enough aversion to "programming language" to stop using it myself.
04:14:42 <lament> I don't either. But definitions are nice.
04:14:54 <lament> Besides, people actually _argue_ about things like this.
04:15:03 <lament> (without looking for a definition)
04:15:22 <dbc> Right.
04:15:57 <lament> Well, it's not often that people argue about programming languages.
04:16:03 <dbc> ("good" is one word that I keep meaning to stop using for similar reasons, but it's a difficult habit to break.)
04:16:47 <lament> But arguments about scripting languages, OO, etc
04:16:52 <lament> are very common.
04:17:07 <lament> dbc: and "is"!
04:17:19 <dbc> Right. Plus, is a program that bundles an interpreter with source code a "real" compiler.
04:17:26 <dbc> &c.
04:24:15 <dbc> The way to get precision, if we want it, is to stick with concepts derived from mathematics, and which have not been firmly co-opted for nontechnical uses. That's my view.
04:32:26 -!- dbc has quit ("You have no chance to survive make your time.").
07:25:03 -!- lament has quit ("leaving").
07:59:59 -!- clog has quit (ended).
08:00:00 -!- clog has joined.
13:49:14 -!- andreou has joined.
13:49:20 <andreou> total power.
13:49:52 <Taaus> Total people.
13:50:51 <andreou> We have come to the conclusion that you are a radical anarchist. Our satellites will track you down, our operatives will kill you and we will laugh as you make it into the statistics.
13:51:07 <Taaus> More spam email, eh?
13:51:08 <andreou> (boo)
13:51:11 <andreou> ehe
13:51:21 <andreou> you can't believe how much. i can't stand it.
13:51:41 <Taaus> Well, don't get mad, get even.
13:51:43 <andreou> what's more, it's real-time spam. i am logged in to the mail account and i receive spam.
13:51:46 <andreou> nah
13:51:59 <andreou> how could i get even?
13:52:02 <Taaus> Okay, don't get mad, get odd.
13:52:12 <andreou> read the spam?
13:52:32 <andreou> i had a friend that read spam. terrible things happened to him.
13:52:37 <Taaus> Poor sod.
13:53:13 <andreou> stupid bastard were my words... read spam, who did he think he were, arnold blackanger?
13:53:40 <Taaus> Well... Some people think they can handle it...
13:54:44 <andreou> wait until the spam gene is found and the first bio-weapon engineered. *then* we will have some fun... >:-D
13:55:01 <Taaus> I shudder at the thought.
13:55:43 <andreou> i laugh uncontrollably at the thought.
13:55:51 <Taaus> You MADMAN!
13:57:30 <andreou> i am not a madman, i am a visionary.
13:58:09 <Taaus> What's that you said? Missionary?
13:58:44 <andreou> ehehhehe
13:59:15 <andreou> I'm an ASS member -- Anti-Spam Sect.
14:00:37 <Taaus> How nice.
14:04:46 <andreou> i'm gone.
14:04:49 -!- andreou has quit ("gone.").
22:45:08 -!- Aardappel has joined.
←2003-07-08 2003-07-09 2003-07-10β†’ ↑2003 ↑all