On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 04:28:51PM -0500, Jeff Vian wrote: > On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 13:58 -0400, Jeff Kinz wrote: > > Made this an [OT] for Matt Miller's sake. > > 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) No. Perl and Java can be compiled (Python as well, or soon). Interpreters exist for C,C++ and Fortran. The boundary between compiled and interpreted programming languages has been somewhat obfuscated. That distinction is not as useful as it once was. > > 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 Its just a part of the whole picture. Not an answer. JeffV, I see that you are trying to be inclusive and friendly and PC and all that but complexity is an issue. It does matter, but no, it is not language specific, nor a final clarifier. > 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. Lets also remember these two things: Finding the answer to "Does it do what I need done?" is made easier when more precise descriptions are used. And this is a "Linux" user's mailing list and almost every one on it are either programmers, admins or some other fairly technical position. Respect their intelligence, don't dumb things down and lose the distinctions. > > 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 ^^^^ I compose email using both keyboard and ASR software. Sometimes the ASR doesn't exactly recognize what was said and inserts a "speako" into the text. Also sometimes I make typo's, especially when dashing things off quickly that I don't always catch. Thats life. Homonyms like hear and here are a common speako. Don't sweat it. I'm certainly not going to. > 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. Programming in the sense that a non-technical manager would consider it programming. That is, "Domain::Programming" aka "(P)", not (P):programming vs (P):scripting. > (And yes, I do consider writing an interpreted script as scripting and > writing a compiled program as programming.) Well, I'm glad we agree about that. I think. It does make your whole set of responses kind of moot, though. > Your demand that the two be looked at differently is outside the scope > of what we do here No, What we do here is the same as the RedHat install list: We help and we inform. But here it is centered on the FC<N> releases/distros rather than Official RedHat software. > ( <nit pick> note the proper spelling "here", unlike > your usage of "hear" above </nit pick>). Repetition of same point. Perhaps you need a life. See ASR stuff above. > 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. Hmm - was someone demanding? Perhaps you should go back and read my first post again. You seem to have misconstrued something somewhere. > 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. Somebody's feathers are certainly ruffled... I suspect you have mis-read something, or you just really like over exaggerating things. > > > 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. Good for you. I quite agree. I assume you must think someone was trying to exclude people somewhere? Pray tell where ? -- Jeff Kinz, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA.
