Re^4: Looking for old Perl CGI code

I want to make it abundantly clear here that I'm really playing devil's advocate in arguing with you. From a technical standpoint, I agree with you completely because the distinctions you are making are useful from that standpoint. Those distinctions, however, aren't so necessary or even so easy to make outside of a technical discussion.

There's only one problem with that - HTML tags are requests, not commands.

There's no such thing as "requesting" that a computer does something because a computer doesn't have free will. Its behavior is well-defined and predictable.^† How a browser implements the specification isn't the issue; those choices have already been made by the browser developers.

Also, the issue isn't whether all computers do exactly the same thing with the input. But, that should be obvious. Give C source to two different compilers and you probably aren't going to get the same output (even on the same platform.)

The distinction between data and code is blurry. Which, for instance, is a perl script? It isn't machine code, but it does contain strings of symbols that, when fed to a perl interpreter, determine the behavior of that interpreter. Perl itself is written in C. C isn't machine code either, but it does contain strings of symbols that, when fed to a compiler, determine the behavior of that compiler. And HTML isn't machine code, but it does contains strings of symbols that, when fed to a browser, determine the behavior of that browser.

By the way, I had this argument with a college professor once (and he, as I, played devil's advocate and argued the side I am now.) It was a little more specific in that the question was "is HTML a programming language?" At one point I decided to appeal to higher authority and I wrote email to Guy Steele, Bjorne Stroustrup, and one or two other famous names. The only reply I got was from Stroustrup. His reply was that, yes, a case can be made for calling HTML a programming language. I've been looking for that email, but I guess I no longer have a copy. In any case, his response shocked me into a more flexible point of view. While I do agree with you from a technical standpoint, I understand completely why your argument won't hold up in court.

† Predictable to someone and in theory (ignoring implementation errors.)

-sauoq
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";

Comment on Re^4: Looking for old Perl CGI code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Looking for old Perl CGI code by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Oct 13, 2005 at 18:54 UTC
I'm not speaking from the viewpoint of the consumer of the browser. I'm speaking from the viewpoint of the CGI application. It emits a set of containers (PerlMouse is correct) and those tags contain additional data. Those containers and the data they contain are all specified in plaintext and that plaintext is optionally parsed by the browser's rendering engine. The browser doesn't have to be a GUI browser a la IE or FF. It can be something as simple as Notepad or some other editor. That is a legitimate browsing client for a given HTTP stream. As for HTML being a programming language, I think Stroustrop is trying to find ducks that dig. It just doesn't pass the sniff test. My criteria for good software: Does it work? Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?	[reply]
Re^6: Looking for old Perl CGI code by sauoq (Abbot) on Oct 13, 2005 at 19:19 UTC
The browser doesn't have to be a GUI browser a la IE or FF. It can be something as simple as Notepad or some other editor. Sure. And, I could step through an algorithm written in C using nothing but pencil and paper too... I don't think you are making a point here. As for HTML being a programming language, I think Stroustrop is trying to find ducks that dig. It just doesn't pass the sniff test. It only smells funny because you've had your nose so close to—uh... for lack of a better word—"real" programming languages. It is, however, a communication standard and it is used to control devices. Outside of the technical community, that's enough. Inside the technical community, we kind of draw a line between "programming languages" and more general "computer languages" but, again, that distinction isn't very useful to anyone but us. And more importantly, in a legal context it isn't going to help much if at all. -sauoq "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";	[reply]
Re^7: Looking for old Perl CGI code by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Oct 13, 2005 at 19:34 UTC
It doesn't pass the sniff test because it stinks. By that definition, phonecalls are a "computer language" because it's both a communication standard and is regularly used to control devices^. Yet, not a single person in the world would agree that the protocol used by telephones is a "computer language". <rant>There seems to be some fundamental misunderstanding of how computers work in the mind of the general public. What we do is not* magic nor is it some completely new idiom in the history of mankind. We define tasks, then hand them off to a servant (slave, really) to do. The only difference between a computer programmer and a slaveowner in Rome is that our slave will do exactly what we say, has perfect recall, and will do it for as long as was asked for. We're not wizards in a tower stirring a bubbling cauldron containing Eye of Newt and Bat's Wings. Gah! We do nothing more than give directions from A to B.</rant> * Remote detonation of a bomb is just the first example that comes to mind. Another is the standard automated thing that you get when you call your bank looking for a human. My criteria for good software: Does it work? Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?	[reply]
Re^8: Looking for old Perl CGI code by sauoq (Abbot) on Oct 13, 2005 at 19:58 UTC
Re^9: Looking for old Perl CGI code by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Oct 13, 2005 at 20:24 UTC


Clear questions and runnable code get the best and fastest answer
	PerlMonks