🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <LEE.91Sep24140540@meercat.wang.com> lee@wang.com (Lee Story) writes:
   In article <8068@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> csa@sw.stratus.com (Chris Arthur) writes:
      In article <9109202320.AA15823@wubios>, david@wubios.wustl.edu (David J. Camp) writes:
      ...
      >     compiler (previously archiver)
      >         a program to aggregate various files into one
      >     translator (previously compiler or assembler)
      >         a program to convert a string from one language to another
      >     Computer Mathematics (previously Computer Science)
      >         the study of the relationship of languages and machines
      ...

      You forgot a :-) here, right?

   No, I don't suppose he did.  There is a considerable difference
   between irony (which by emphasizing a ridiculous position implies
   favor for its opposite), for which the unnecessary and patronizing
   smiley convention is used by the illiterate pseuodscientists of the
   computing business, and sarcasm, which appears to be Mr. Camp's
   approach.  As addressed to our inflated programming terminology, I
   agree with his disdain.  I'm surprised, though, that he didn't also
   blast the inappropriate and deceptive technical meaning of "language".
   At one time "code" was considered sufficient, but then the ad men
   started selling "giant brains", and....

For anyone as confused as Mr. Story (hard to believe, I know :-), a
smiley face is a way of encoding the facial expression you would use
if you were speaking the text around the smiley face.  This in practice
is a remarkably effective way of removing some of the ambiguity that
occurs when human communication is encoded into character strings.
There is no particular association between a smiley face and irony,
other than that one sometimes smiles when making an ironic statement.

The original poster is completely correct in making the point that
the "natural" (in a historical sense) meaning of compiler and translator
differs from current usage.  On the other hand, language does not develop
in this rational consistent fashion (unless you are in France with the
Academy keeping things in line :-), and therefore any attempt to
"rationalize" firmly embedded terminology like "compiler" and "translator"
is clearly quixotic.  The second poster naturally enough that such a
quixotic quest deserved a smile.

Finally, the move from "code" to "language" is more an indication of
the change from octal code strings to almost readable statements, than
any attempt to "inflate" our terminology (we need "ad men" to convince
the world that software is important ?!? :-).

Cheers,

Geoff