On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 19:35 -0400, Jeff Kinz wrote: > 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). Perl can be compiled, but is mostly JIT compiled. The same with a lot of Java. > 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. > This branch of the discussion is related to whether scripting is programming. Ian's definition seemed very close and about as complete as 3 sentences could be. Scripting is programming, albeit in a different language than you seem to routinely use. > > 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 exactly > list and almost every one on it are either programmers, admins or some > other fairly technical position. Respect their intelligence, don't dumb That categorization of list members is not even close. A few years ago that was true. Today I see most of the questions (and almost as many answers) coming from new users (often referred to as newbies), and all of this community welcomes them and tries to assist. Just as the OP in this thread seemed to be a newbie. Being too technical in replies can be as much a deterrent to new users as refusing to provide an answer. Try doing customer support on any type of computer hardware or software and you will see what I mean by that. > 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. > Again, being overly technical when a straight forward, easy to understand response would be better to answer the OP's question, and would likely fit his current expertise level better. And, BTW, please explain to system admins that they are not writing programs when they do shell scripts or the like to handle management tasks on their systems. And help them to understand that those scripts are less important to them than the binary programs that you are so proud of and seem to feel are more germane to every day life. All programming is equally important at different levels, and you should not try to claim writing a compiled program is more necessary or technical than someone's script may be. Scripting with all the tools available for use can handle _very_ complex tasks and often more efficiently than specialized compiled programs. > > (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. No, the terminology to describe a scripted program is not the issue. Your comment that scripting is not programming is at the heart of this.
