Subject: Re: becoming a better programmer From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: 16 Sep 2002 16:48:12 +0000 Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.perl.misc Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Michael Sullivan | Yes it is. It's neither Turing complete, nor general purpose, nor very well | designed, but it's definitely a programming language. * Tim Bradshaw | I think you are pushing it rather hard to count something with no | conditional, variable binding, iteration or recursion constructs as a | programming language. There appears to be a serious failure to understand the difference between languages that general programs accept as input and languages that compilers, interpreterrs, and other language processors accept as input. Just because it is interpreted and produces some response in the interpreter does not make it a programming language. From a Lisp perspective, the irony in the failure to distinguish code from data is particularly enjoyable. -- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.