On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 13:58 -0400, Jeff Kinz wrote:
> Made this an [OT] for Matt Miller's sake.
>
> On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 06:10:56PM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
> > grumman Fan wrote:
> > > On 5/23/05, John Summerfied <debian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>Jeff Kinz wrote:
> > >>>This isn't a programming question. Its a scripting question.
> > >>
> > >>scripts meet most IT definitions of "program."
> > >
> > > So "scripting" is the same thing as "programming"?
> > >
> > > "I scripted a new Linux kernel today."
> >
> > Scripting is a subset of programming, and nobody suggested otherwise.
>
> Ah, - Thank you Paul, excellent direction to go in.
>
> The confusion between "what is scripting" and "what is programming"
> rises from the different levels in the set of activities called
> "programming".
>
> Here is the problems: We have a domain set called programming which
> contains two activity sub-domains; "scripting" and "not scripting".
Actually that would be better described in the terms of interpreted
languages (bash, perl, python, and many others) and compiled languages
( c, c++, fortran, and many others)
Each of those tools/languages has an area of functionality where it is
best. Many of us use multiple of the tools available depending upon
what we are actually doing.
>
> What do we generally call the activity sub domain of "not scripting"?
>
> In general we call it "programming".
>
> And people who do "not scripting", (within the domain of programming),
> for a living, are very aware of the difference and are careful to
> differentiate between the two, because, in general, (Not always, but
> generally), programming is much more difficult/complex.
Who really cares about the level of complexity of each when as users,
most people are only concerned about the question of "Does it do what I
need done?" ? Lets be realistic and remember that this is a users mail
list and not a programmers mail list.
>
> Why do I care: (and why you should too)
>
> Today one post called using the command line "entering the Kernel".
> And another referred to using an editor's search and replace function
> as "programming".
>
> Clearing these incorrect usages up is part of what we need to do hear to
here ^^^^
> help people new to the concepts user their words properly so they can
use ^^^^
> communicate more clearly and avoid confusion and wasting the time of the
> people trying to help them. Thats us, by the way. :)
>
I agree that language needs to be precise, but it does not change the
fact that scripting is only one of many terms used to define writing a
program in an interpreted language, yet the action is still programming.
I can write a very powerful program in perl (a script) and a similar
program in c++ (then compile it) to do exactly the same thing. The
language used does not change the fact that the action of creating the
program is still programming. (And yes, I do consider writing an
interpreted script as scripting and writing a compiled program as
programming.)
Your demand that the two be looked at differently is outside the scope
of what we do here ( <nit pick> note the proper spelling "here", unlike
your usage of "hear" above </nit pick>).
There are many people whose expertise is in one language, others have
expertise in different languages, and still others who have no idea of
what a "program" or "script" is. Regardless of their skill level, this
list is intended for communication and assistance and not for demanding
that they meet your precise terminology in asking for help.
Lets look at what help is needed and provide what we can instead of
squabbling about the precise terminology used and getting our feathers
ruffled because it does not fit _your_ precise definition of how it
should be used.
> We all know that spoken languages are vague and imprecise and those
> characteristics are usually to our benefit, but we need
> some level of coherent differentiation for different concepts.
Agreed, and that usually comes with a meaningful dialog. Spelling is
also useful in conveying a proper meaning, yet many do not use English
as their native tongue, and should we exclude them for it? I think not.
> --
> Jeff Kinz, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA.
>
