The Most Popular Programming Language in America is...
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
And written. See?
Thanks for filling in the dots I left :->
If you try to write that in English, I might be able to understand more than a fraction of it. - Guffa
-
Not to feed your trolling but I downloaded your demo "hello world" app and took a look at the source code. Interesting. If you like I can give you an honest critique from what I saw. Also, from your comments you speak of your product as a compiler, to me it looks more like an application framework.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long, Time Enough For Love
Chris Austin wrote:
I downloaded your demo "hello world" app and took a look at the source code. Interesting.
Did you run the sample program? The "Cal Monet" is quite an artist, and - this is the important part - he does his work much like a real artist does (without a single "matrix transformation" or "gaussian blur"). Just start him up, type in the name of what you'd like painted, and use the PAGE UP and PAGE DOWN keys to view the various renderings.
Chris Austin wrote:
If you like I can give you an honest critique from what I saw.
Thanks. It's really more helpful, however, if you download the whole product, work your way through the manual, rummage around in the source code, think about it for a couple of days, and then let us know what you think. "First impressions" are not very useful with iconoclastic products like this one. If you're willing to put in the half-day, we're willing to get you a free copy for evaluation. Just write (help@osmosian.com).
Chris Austin wrote:
Also, from your comments you speak of your product as a compiler, to me it looks more like an application framework.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "framework". It's an IDE (Integrated Development Environment) to be sure, but what we give you is a fast compiler, a blank screen, and a handful of general-purpose routines. The "creative" stuff - including the "look and feel" of your applications - is up to you.
-
English! More people use English, everyday, to program their kids and their dogs than all other programming languages combined (some even use it to program their computers). Spanish, however, is a close second and may soon become the number one programming language in America...
You program a computer; you teach a kid. There is a fundamental difference here which is a serious flaw in your statement.
Steve
-
English is a spoken language...
If you try to write that in English, I might be able to understand more than a fraction of it. - Guffa
How I wish english were a programming language !:rolleyes:
-
You program a computer; you teach a kid. There is a fundamental difference here which is a serious flaw in your statement.
Steve
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
You program a computer; you teach a kid. There is a fundamental difference here which is a serious flaw in your statement.
Are you quite sure? Did Pavlov "condition" his dogs to respond as they did? Or did he "teach" them? Or did he "program" them? Is there really a meaningful difference between these terms in this context?
-
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
You program a computer; you teach a kid. There is a fundamental difference here which is a serious flaw in your statement.
Are you quite sure? Did Pavlov "condition" his dogs to respond as they did? Or did he "teach" them? Or did he "program" them? Is there really a meaningful difference between these terms in this context?
The Grand Negus wrote:
Is there really a meaningful difference between these terms in this context?
Yes.
Steve
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
Is there really a meaningful difference between these terms in this context?
Yes.
Steve
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
The Grand Negus wrote: Is there really a meaningful difference between these terms in this context? Yes.
And what, pray tell, is that difference? Ringing the bell (input) makes the dog salivate (output) because the dog has been "programmed" to respond in that way. The dog's program has a statement in it that says, "If a bell is ringing, salivate." And who added that line to the program? Pavlov the programmer.
-
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
The Grand Negus wrote: Is there really a meaningful difference between these terms in this context? Yes.
And what, pray tell, is that difference? Ringing the bell (input) makes the dog salivate (output) because the dog has been "programmed" to respond in that way. The dog's program has a statement in it that says, "If a bell is ringing, salivate." And who added that line to the program? Pavlov the programmer.
Although we don't know that much about how brains work we do know they are not at all like traditional computers. The closest we’ve got is neural networks. If we assume a brain is a neural network – and people such as Roger Penrose in his book “The Emperor's New Mind” have even suggested that the brain uses quantum processes, so it remains to be seen if this assumption does the brain justice – then it’s follows that brains are not programmed in the traditional sense: they are taught. The processing in a neural network is distributed: there need be no simple “statement” which directly connects input to output as you suggest. Oversimplifying to the degree you have serves no useful purpose.
Steve
-
Although we don't know that much about how brains work we do know they are not at all like traditional computers. The closest we’ve got is neural networks. If we assume a brain is a neural network – and people such as Roger Penrose in his book “The Emperor's New Mind” have even suggested that the brain uses quantum processes, so it remains to be seen if this assumption does the brain justice – then it’s follows that brains are not programmed in the traditional sense: they are taught. The processing in a neural network is distributed: there need be no simple “statement” which directly connects input to output as you suggest. Oversimplifying to the degree you have serves no useful purpose.
Steve
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
Although we don't know that about how brains work we do know they are not at all like traditional computers. The closest we’ve got is neural networks. If we assume a brain is a neural network – and people such as Roger Penrose in his book “The Emperor's New Mind” have even suggested that the brain uses quantum processes, so it remains to be seen if this assumption does the brain justice – then it’s follows that you brains are not programmed in the traditional sense: they are taught. The processing in a neural network is distributed: there need be no simple “statement” which directly connects input to output as you suggest.
And passenger jets don't work like birds, either. But to say that they therefore don't fly is nonsense. Ditto for rockets, which are even less like birds.
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
Oversimplifying to the degree you have serves no useful purpose.
No useful purpose for you, perhaps. But for us, it's the key. Our goal is to build a machine - the PAL 3000 - that will answer questions and do other useful things for us, on command. Our definition of "understanding", therefore is a very prosaic one - almost Pavlovian or Skinnerish: "If the machine responds properly to a command, it must have understood the command." So I say to my son, "Turn on the kitchen light" and he does. Did he understand? Yes. How do I know? Because he did what I said. Now I say to the PAL, "Turn off the kitchen light" and he does. Did he understand? Yes. How do I know? Because he did what I said. Then I say to my son, "What did you just do?" and he says, "I turned on the kitchen light"; clearly understanding my question, remembering, and responding appropriately. Finally, I turn to the PAL and say, "What did you just do?" and he says, "I turned off the kitchen light"; again, understanding, remembering, and responding appropriately. Question: Does the PAL really understand and remember? Answer: Does an airplane really fly?
-
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
Although we don't know that about how brains work we do know they are not at all like traditional computers. The closest we’ve got is neural networks. If we assume a brain is a neural network – and people such as Roger Penrose in his book “The Emperor's New Mind” have even suggested that the brain uses quantum processes, so it remains to be seen if this assumption does the brain justice – then it’s follows that you brains are not programmed in the traditional sense: they are taught. The processing in a neural network is distributed: there need be no simple “statement” which directly connects input to output as you suggest.
And passenger jets don't work like birds, either. But to say that they therefore don't fly is nonsense. Ditto for rockets, which are even less like birds.
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
Oversimplifying to the degree you have serves no useful purpose.
No useful purpose for you, perhaps. But for us, it's the key. Our goal is to build a machine - the PAL 3000 - that will answer questions and do other useful things for us, on command. Our definition of "understanding", therefore is a very prosaic one - almost Pavlovian or Skinnerish: "If the machine responds properly to a command, it must have understood the command." So I say to my son, "Turn on the kitchen light" and he does. Did he understand? Yes. How do I know? Because he did what I said. Now I say to the PAL, "Turn off the kitchen light" and he does. Did he understand? Yes. How do I know? Because he did what I said. Then I say to my son, "What did you just do?" and he says, "I turned on the kitchen light"; clearly understanding my question, remembering, and responding appropriately. Finally, I turn to the PAL and say, "What did you just do?" and he says, "I turned off the kitchen light"; again, understanding, remembering, and responding appropriately. Question: Does the PAL really understand and remember? Answer: Does an airplane really fly?
Good Logic.;P
-
English! More people use English, everyday, to program their kids and their dogs than all other programming languages combined (some even use it to program their computers). Spanish, however, is a close second and may soon become the number one programming language in America...
-
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
Although we don't know that about how brains work we do know they are not at all like traditional computers. The closest we’ve got is neural networks. If we assume a brain is a neural network – and people such as Roger Penrose in his book “The Emperor's New Mind” have even suggested that the brain uses quantum processes, so it remains to be seen if this assumption does the brain justice – then it’s follows that you brains are not programmed in the traditional sense: they are taught. The processing in a neural network is distributed: there need be no simple “statement” which directly connects input to output as you suggest.
And passenger jets don't work like birds, either. But to say that they therefore don't fly is nonsense. Ditto for rockets, which are even less like birds.
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
Oversimplifying to the degree you have serves no useful purpose.
No useful purpose for you, perhaps. But for us, it's the key. Our goal is to build a machine - the PAL 3000 - that will answer questions and do other useful things for us, on command. Our definition of "understanding", therefore is a very prosaic one - almost Pavlovian or Skinnerish: "If the machine responds properly to a command, it must have understood the command." So I say to my son, "Turn on the kitchen light" and he does. Did he understand? Yes. How do I know? Because he did what I said. Now I say to the PAL, "Turn off the kitchen light" and he does. Did he understand? Yes. How do I know? Because he did what I said. Then I say to my son, "What did you just do?" and he says, "I turned on the kitchen light"; clearly understanding my question, remembering, and responding appropriately. Finally, I turn to the PAL and say, "What did you just do?" and he says, "I turned off the kitchen light"; again, understanding, remembering, and responding appropriately. Question: Does the PAL really understand and remember? Answer: Does an airplane really fly?
The Grand Negus wrote:
So I say to my son, "Turn on the kitchen light" and he does. Did he understand? Yes. How do I know? Because he did what I said. Now I say to the PAL, "Turn off the kitchen light" and he does. Did he understand? Yes. How do I know? Because he did what I said. Then I say to my son, "What did you just do?" and he says, "I turned on the kitchen light"; clearly understanding my question, remembering, and responding appropriately. Finally, I turn to the PAL and say, "What did you just do?" and he says, "I turned off the kitchen light"; again, understanding, remembering, and responding appropriately.
The problem is that your 'son' understands conceptually what you mean and responds acordingly as he feels appropriate, wheras the 'PAL' simply performs a programmed response to an expected input and doesn't actuallyunderstand anything at all. If you said to your 'son', "Well hey there boy, hit the lights for me will ya'?", your 'son would likely understand to turn on the light wheras 'PAL' would not do similar in reverse and be able to understand the input to turn them off. Your premis is flawed as there is no such thing as 'plain english', there are simply an inexhaustible selection of flavours of English. Programming is about conditioned responses to input, learning is about understanding the input in order to derive a response. PAL doesn't 'understand' in your example, but simply responds to input and stores the action it performed in response to it.
Rhys I'm glad I'm not Brezhnev. Being the Russian leader in the Kremlin, you never know if someone's tape-recording what you say. Richard Nixon
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
So I say to my son, "Turn on the kitchen light" and he does. Did he understand? Yes. How do I know? Because he did what I said. Now I say to the PAL, "Turn off the kitchen light" and he does. Did he understand? Yes. How do I know? Because he did what I said. Then I say to my son, "What did you just do?" and he says, "I turned on the kitchen light"; clearly understanding my question, remembering, and responding appropriately. Finally, I turn to the PAL and say, "What did you just do?" and he says, "I turned off the kitchen light"; again, understanding, remembering, and responding appropriately.
The problem is that your 'son' understands conceptually what you mean and responds acordingly as he feels appropriate, wheras the 'PAL' simply performs a programmed response to an expected input and doesn't actuallyunderstand anything at all. If you said to your 'son', "Well hey there boy, hit the lights for me will ya'?", your 'son would likely understand to turn on the light wheras 'PAL' would not do similar in reverse and be able to understand the input to turn them off. Your premis is flawed as there is no such thing as 'plain english', there are simply an inexhaustible selection of flavours of English. Programming is about conditioned responses to input, learning is about understanding the input in order to derive a response. PAL doesn't 'understand' in your example, but simply responds to input and stores the action it performed in response to it.
Rhys I'm glad I'm not Brezhnev. Being the Russian leader in the Kremlin, you never know if someone's tape-recording what you say. Richard Nixon
Rhys666 wrote:
The problem is that your 'son' understands conceptually what you mean and responds acordingly as he feels appropriate, wheras the 'PAL' simply performs a programmed response to an expected input and doesn't actuallyunderstand anything at all.
My son "conceptually" understands - ie, knows what and where the light is and knows what levels of brightness constitute "on" and "off" mean in the context of the light. But so does the PAL - he knows which "port" is connected to the light, he knows which photocell measures its output, he knows which photocell values are to be interpreted as "on" and "off". "My son responds accordingly as he feels appropriate" - which, of course, is part of the problem with humans. If you want, we can put other routines in your PAL (random number generators or better) to simulate the unreliablility of behavior influenced by emotions - then your PAL, too, will respond only when he "feels" like it!
Rhys666 wrote:
If you said to your 'son', "Well hey there boy, hit the lights for me will ya'?", your 'son would likely understand to turn on the light wheras 'PAL' would not do similar in reverse and be able to understand the input to turn them off.
Not so. The way our parsers works, the PAL would take the appropriate action.
Rhys666 wrote:
Programming is about conditioned responses to input, learning is about understanding the input in order to derive a response.
I'm not sure I see a major difference there; either way, the input produces a response. The complex internal processes do not have to be exactly the same, they just have produce similar results. Wings do not have to flap like a bird's to make an airplane fly.
Rhys666 wrote:
PAL doesn't 'understand' in your example, but simply responds to input and stores the action it performed in response to it.
Which are the definitions of "understanding" and "remembering" we've chosen to work from. We're not claiming that that makes the PAL equal to a human (or less, or more) - we're just saying that with those definitions we can build a machine that will respond in an apparently intelligent way to queries and commmands; if we adopt more esoteric definitions, we probably won't get around to building the thing in my lifetime. So, in short, I don't care
-
Rhys666 wrote:
The problem is that your 'son' understands conceptually what you mean and responds acordingly as he feels appropriate, wheras the 'PAL' simply performs a programmed response to an expected input and doesn't actuallyunderstand anything at all.
My son "conceptually" understands - ie, knows what and where the light is and knows what levels of brightness constitute "on" and "off" mean in the context of the light. But so does the PAL - he knows which "port" is connected to the light, he knows which photocell measures its output, he knows which photocell values are to be interpreted as "on" and "off". "My son responds accordingly as he feels appropriate" - which, of course, is part of the problem with humans. If you want, we can put other routines in your PAL (random number generators or better) to simulate the unreliablility of behavior influenced by emotions - then your PAL, too, will respond only when he "feels" like it!
Rhys666 wrote:
If you said to your 'son', "Well hey there boy, hit the lights for me will ya'?", your 'son would likely understand to turn on the light wheras 'PAL' would not do similar in reverse and be able to understand the input to turn them off.
Not so. The way our parsers works, the PAL would take the appropriate action.
Rhys666 wrote:
Programming is about conditioned responses to input, learning is about understanding the input in order to derive a response.
I'm not sure I see a major difference there; either way, the input produces a response. The complex internal processes do not have to be exactly the same, they just have produce similar results. Wings do not have to flap like a bird's to make an airplane fly.
Rhys666 wrote:
PAL doesn't 'understand' in your example, but simply responds to input and stores the action it performed in response to it.
Which are the definitions of "understanding" and "remembering" we've chosen to work from. We're not claiming that that makes the PAL equal to a human (or less, or more) - we're just saying that with those definitions we can build a machine that will respond in an apparently intelligent way to queries and commmands; if we adopt more esoteric definitions, we probably won't get around to building the thing in my lifetime. So, in short, I don't care
The Grand Negus wrote:
I'm not sure I see a major difference there; either way, the input produces a response. The complex internal processes do not have to be exactly the same, they just have produce similar results. Wings do not have to flap like a bird's to make an airplane fly.
I think personally the difference is expressed best by Pavlov again. The dogs drooled with no understanding of why, the were 're-conditioned' from an associative response, drooling when food presented, to an innapropriate response, drooling brought on by induced pain. To me this is a good comparison to the work you're undertaking with a plain english compiler. Making the dogs drool at pain did not provide any benefit except on an observational level in that it could be done. Making a Plain English compiler, to me, doesn't provide any benefit other than to show it can be done. IMHO, the Englisg language as a whole is an exceptionally poor choice for what you are undertaking due to its inherrant verbosity of variety of meaning for the same word across dialects and nations speaking it. Was that 'color' or 'colour'? By limiting to one of these it's not by definition a Plain English compiler but a UK or US English compiler. No matter how many ways you try to lead me up the same garden path, the destination isn't changing, it's a dead end, another academic experiment which although interesting for some in understanding how it works, has little to no actual practical use or application.
Rhys I'm glad I'm not Brezhnev. Being the Russian leader in the Kremlin, you never know if someone's tape-recording what you say. Richard Nixon
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
I'm not sure I see a major difference there; either way, the input produces a response. The complex internal processes do not have to be exactly the same, they just have produce similar results. Wings do not have to flap like a bird's to make an airplane fly.
I think personally the difference is expressed best by Pavlov again. The dogs drooled with no understanding of why, the were 're-conditioned' from an associative response, drooling when food presented, to an innapropriate response, drooling brought on by induced pain. To me this is a good comparison to the work you're undertaking with a plain english compiler. Making the dogs drool at pain did not provide any benefit except on an observational level in that it could be done. Making a Plain English compiler, to me, doesn't provide any benefit other than to show it can be done. IMHO, the Englisg language as a whole is an exceptionally poor choice for what you are undertaking due to its inherrant verbosity of variety of meaning for the same word across dialects and nations speaking it. Was that 'color' or 'colour'? By limiting to one of these it's not by definition a Plain English compiler but a UK or US English compiler. No matter how many ways you try to lead me up the same garden path, the destination isn't changing, it's a dead end, another academic experiment which although interesting for some in understanding how it works, has little to no actual practical use or application.
Rhys I'm glad I'm not Brezhnev. Being the Russian leader in the Kremlin, you never know if someone's tape-recording what you say. Richard Nixon
Rhys666 wrote:
The dogs drooled with no understanding of why
When the bell rang, yes. And when food was presented also. A dog doesn't "understand" why he drools, ever.
Rhys666 wrote:
another academic experiment which although interesting for some in understanding how it works, has little to no actual practical use or application.
If someone studies our code and learns how to write a compiler, isn't that practical? And when when we use our Plain English page layout program to write articles and design houses, isn't that practical? And when in the future, God willing, our PAL turns on the lights when we tell him to, isn't that practical? You've got strange definitions of "practical" and "use" and "application".
-
Rhys666 wrote:
The dogs drooled with no understanding of why
When the bell rang, yes. And when food was presented also. A dog doesn't "understand" why he drools, ever.
Rhys666 wrote:
another academic experiment which although interesting for some in understanding how it works, has little to no actual practical use or application.
If someone studies our code and learns how to write a compiler, isn't that practical? And when when we use our Plain English page layout program to write articles and design houses, isn't that practical? And when in the future, God willing, our PAL turns on the lights when we tell him to, isn't that practical? You've got strange definitions of "practical" and "use" and "application".
The Grand Negus wrote: If someone studies our code and learns how to write a compiler, isn't that practical? That entirely depends what they do with that knowledge, personally it would give me nothing.
The Grand Negus wrote:
nd when in the future, God willing, our PAL turns on the lights when we tell him to
A point I am still debating you'll ever achieve in a language that does not exist - 'Plain English'. And again, just because you can make your 'PAL' do it, doesn't mean someone else didn't do it earlier with an alternative. As I've said, English is a preposterously bad choice for an instructive programming language to ever be of real practical use. By the time you reach your goals it will have already been "practically" "appllied" "using" alternative ways and alternative methodologies that likely will have moved on and advanced further whilst you are catching up. To do my job I don't need to know cobol, and although there's probably much I could learn from it's use and application, it doesn't actually make learning it of any interest or actual practical use to me at this time, the same with your compiler. I enjoy my work, but I'd like to keep working in technology fit for the future not the past, and in technology that will allow me to keep working at something I enjoy. You still offer absolutely nothing. You really need to change your approach you know, you did catch my expression of one of the definitions of insanity, you know the one, 'carrying out the same actions, expecting different results'?
Rhys666
-
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
Although we don't know that about how brains work we do know they are not at all like traditional computers. The closest we’ve got is neural networks. If we assume a brain is a neural network – and people such as Roger Penrose in his book “The Emperor's New Mind” have even suggested that the brain uses quantum processes, so it remains to be seen if this assumption does the brain justice – then it’s follows that you brains are not programmed in the traditional sense: they are taught. The processing in a neural network is distributed: there need be no simple “statement” which directly connects input to output as you suggest.
And passenger jets don't work like birds, either. But to say that they therefore don't fly is nonsense. Ditto for rockets, which are even less like birds.
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
Oversimplifying to the degree you have serves no useful purpose.
No useful purpose for you, perhaps. But for us, it's the key. Our goal is to build a machine - the PAL 3000 - that will answer questions and do other useful things for us, on command. Our definition of "understanding", therefore is a very prosaic one - almost Pavlovian or Skinnerish: "If the machine responds properly to a command, it must have understood the command." So I say to my son, "Turn on the kitchen light" and he does. Did he understand? Yes. How do I know? Because he did what I said. Now I say to the PAL, "Turn off the kitchen light" and he does. Did he understand? Yes. How do I know? Because he did what I said. Then I say to my son, "What did you just do?" and he says, "I turned on the kitchen light"; clearly understanding my question, remembering, and responding appropriately. Finally, I turn to the PAL and say, "What did you just do?" and he says, "I turned off the kitchen light"; again, understanding, remembering, and responding appropriately. Question: Does the PAL really understand and remember? Answer: Does an airplane really fly?
The Grand Negus wrote:
And passenger jets don't work like birds, either. But to say that they therefore don't fly is nonsense. Ditto for rockets, which are even less like birds.
These sort of arguments work in some cases but not others. Sure a rocket and a bird both fly but seeing one similarity and inferring others, such as jets fly by flapping their wings is clearly nonsense. You metaphor comparing teaching children (or training dogs) with programming computers is one such example. As I said, children learn and have intelligence whereas computers blindly follow instructions.
Steve
-
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
You program a computer; you teach a kid. There is a fundamental difference here which is a serious flaw in your statement.
Are you quite sure? Did Pavlov "condition" his dogs to respond as they did? Or did he "teach" them? Or did he "program" them? Is there really a meaningful difference between these terms in this context?
The Grand Negus wrote:
Are you quite sure? Did Pavlov "condition" his dogs to respond as they did? Or did he "teach" them? Or did he "program" them? Is there really a meaningful difference between these terms in this context?
Haven't studied Pavlov, but I am a programmer, and as such the answer seems pretty simple to me. Saying that you program a child is a bit like calling a data entry clerk a programmer. Simply inputting data in an attempt to get a desired output is not "programming". Take a slightly more complex system, one designed to "learn" (e.g. use past input in conjunction with current input to determine output). The user inputting the data might be putting in motion a series of events that causes the system to "learn", but they are not a programmer. The code does not change. Even in the context of cults (a subject I happen to know a little about) one is not "programming". "Conditioning" might be an acceptable term, but all that is really happening is the cult leaders put the cult members through a series of experiences designed to elicit a specific result. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. E.g. they are tailoring their input to get a specific output. E.g. data entry clerk, not programmer. To say that you are programming a child is more or less saying you build brains. That's quite impressive, if I may say so myself. Symantics...
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
Are you quite sure? Did Pavlov "condition" his dogs to respond as they did? Or did he "teach" them? Or did he "program" them? Is there really a meaningful difference between these terms in this context?
Haven't studied Pavlov, but I am a programmer, and as such the answer seems pretty simple to me. Saying that you program a child is a bit like calling a data entry clerk a programmer. Simply inputting data in an attempt to get a desired output is not "programming". Take a slightly more complex system, one designed to "learn" (e.g. use past input in conjunction with current input to determine output). The user inputting the data might be putting in motion a series of events that causes the system to "learn", but they are not a programmer. The code does not change. Even in the context of cults (a subject I happen to know a little about) one is not "programming". "Conditioning" might be an acceptable term, but all that is really happening is the cult leaders put the cult members through a series of experiences designed to elicit a specific result. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. E.g. they are tailoring their input to get a specific output. E.g. data entry clerk, not programmer. To say that you are programming a child is more or less saying you build brains. That's quite impressive, if I may say so myself. Symantics...
Let's distinguish between three different "levels" here and see where it leads us, using a spreadsheet and three people that I'll call user, consultant, and creator as an example (I'm avoiding the word "programmer" intentionally): (1) data is entered into the spreadsheet program by the user; (2) formulae are entered into the spreadsheet program by the consultant; and (3) the spreadsheet program itself was devised by the creator to parse and execute the consultant's formulae on the user's data (among other things). Now I agree that the user in this scenario is not "programming" in the usual sense of the word; but clearly the values entered by that user do affect the operation of the program. But what of the consultant? Does he "program" the program? Apparently so - the information he enters significantly changes the behavior of the program. We could perhaps say that the program "learns" when it is taught by the consultant to do new things - doesn't learn on it's own, to be sure, but does learn to do new things, things that it was not originally capable of doing except in seminal form. Finally, we reach the creator. Clearly, he "programs" in the usual sense of the word. And his work cannot be directly modified by the consultant or the user without doing violence to the program itself. Yet it appears (from above) that the consultant is able to program the program at some level, and that even the user has a say regarding the behavior that is produced. So who is programming here, and who isn't? As a tentative suggestion, I would place non-recurring and inessential events (assuming there are such things) at the user level; Pavlov, the cult leader, other people who make an "impression", and any salient and/or recurring event at the consultant level; and, of course, God at the creator level. It is also interesting to ask what we've got when the input from each of these three is lost. Obviously, if the creator's input is lost, the program ceases to function; it dies. But what if the consultant's work is lost? Is it still the same program? If you were never taught to read or play the piano, would you be the same person? And what if user input is lost? If you didn't notice that blue car zooming past, or if that old man didn't say, "Hello", would you still be the same person? Am I attempting to program you right now with this very post?
-
Let's distinguish between three different "levels" here and see where it leads us, using a spreadsheet and three people that I'll call user, consultant, and creator as an example (I'm avoiding the word "programmer" intentionally): (1) data is entered into the spreadsheet program by the user; (2) formulae are entered into the spreadsheet program by the consultant; and (3) the spreadsheet program itself was devised by the creator to parse and execute the consultant's formulae on the user's data (among other things). Now I agree that the user in this scenario is not "programming" in the usual sense of the word; but clearly the values entered by that user do affect the operation of the program. But what of the consultant? Does he "program" the program? Apparently so - the information he enters significantly changes the behavior of the program. We could perhaps say that the program "learns" when it is taught by the consultant to do new things - doesn't learn on it's own, to be sure, but does learn to do new things, things that it was not originally capable of doing except in seminal form. Finally, we reach the creator. Clearly, he "programs" in the usual sense of the word. And his work cannot be directly modified by the consultant or the user without doing violence to the program itself. Yet it appears (from above) that the consultant is able to program the program at some level, and that even the user has a say regarding the behavior that is produced. So who is programming here, and who isn't? As a tentative suggestion, I would place non-recurring and inessential events (assuming there are such things) at the user level; Pavlov, the cult leader, other people who make an "impression", and any salient and/or recurring event at the consultant level; and, of course, God at the creator level. It is also interesting to ask what we've got when the input from each of these three is lost. Obviously, if the creator's input is lost, the program ceases to function; it dies. But what if the consultant's work is lost? Is it still the same program? If you were never taught to read or play the piano, would you be the same person? And what if user input is lost? If you didn't notice that blue car zooming past, or if that old man didn't say, "Hello", would you still be the same person? Am I attempting to program you right now with this very post?
I should know better, but...
The Grand Negus wrote:
(I'm avoiding the word "programmer" intentionally):
Danke.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Now I agree that the user in this scenario is not "programming" in the usual sense of the word; but clearly the values entered by that user do affect the operation of the program.
True, but that can be said of any program, so still a data entry clerk.
The Grand Negus wrote:
but does learn to do new things, things that it was not originally capable of doing except in seminal form.
The consultant is not getting the program to do anything it was not already intended to do in the final design. This could be said if a dll was linked in providing completely new functionality, but in the child example, that's like putting microchips into the child's brain.
The Grand Negus wrote:
So who is programming here, and who isn't?
I'll take door number 3!
The Grand Negus wrote:
But what if the consultant's work is lost? Is it still the same program?
Yes, it's still Excel. Microsoft has most likely never even heard of the consultant.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Am I attempting to program you right now with this very post?
Perhaps, but you're gonna need admin rights for that.:laugh: I'm really only defining "Programming" from a programmer's point of view, I'm not an expert on psychology. However, if you kick a dog, what happens? The "fight or flight" instinct kicks in. Did you create the "fight or flight" reaction? No. It's already there, you only triggered it. If you repeatedly kick the dog you might teach the dog to hate you (A "conditioned" reaction). Did you create the feeling "Hate"? No, you triggered it by abusing the dog. These reactions were all programmed into the dog at birth by evolution, !% Insert favorite deity %!, etc. The "user" tries to achive a desired result by tailoring input to achieve the output. Still seems pretty simple to me.