On Monday, May 23rd 2005 at 14:15 -0400, quoth grumman Fan:
=>On 5/23/05, Steven W. Orr <steveo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: =>> On Monday, May 23rd 2005 at 13:02 -0400, quoth grumman Fan: =>> =>So "scripting" is the same thing as "programming"? =>> => =>> =>"I scripted a new Linux kernel today." =>> => =>> =>Ha. snort. =>> =>> If it makes you feel better, don't think in term of "scripting language". =>> Think instead in terms of Very High Level Language. Things like perl or =>> ruby or python or tcl qualify. They are intended to be scripting languages =>> that are reasonable (or better) choices for use as system implementation =>> languages. => =>Let me see if I understand this correctly: => =>You are positting that perl, ruby and tcl are "system implementation =>languages"? =>Is that correct?
I am not positting, but I am positing. Correct. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or if you are really inquisitive. On the assumption that you are being sarcastic (based also on your previous nasal difficulties), let's look at what a system implementation language requires. Is there any system call that is not accessible from perl/ruby/tcl/python? No. Is there any OO programming construct that is not available from these languages? No. The only difference is really the method of execution: Do we only execute ECOFF or do we allow interpreted or PCODE? Bash scripting does not qualify as a system implementation language because there are a ton of things that you can not do. I'm just wondering if, at the heart of this, there is some sort of discrimination against non-ecoff people. ;-)
-- Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana. Stranger things have .0. happened but none stranger than this. Does your driver's license say Organ ..0 Donor?Black holes are where God divided by zero. Listen to me! We are all- 000 individuals! What if this weren't a hypothetical question? steveo at syslang.net
