Re: why does screwed up source code work?

In article <Ia6dncyubpZPgb_UnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Jim Moe <jmm-list.AXSPAMGN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 11/17/08 01:50 pm, dorayme wrote:

It is best to name something that which it is. Source code implies a
skill set largely irrelevant to creating web pages.

Implies to whom? Almost all professional HTML authors know better. [...]

Given many of the discussions I have read here I would say there a not
very many professional HTML authors. Most seem to think that they are
actually "coding" a web page rather than marking up content.
I tend to be overly literal. I rashly assume that a person uses
terminology in a generally accepted way. I regularly answer the wrong
question.

In common usage "theory" is an unsupported conjecture. For scientists a
theory is the next best thing to a fact. You can see where this may cause
some difficulty.

Indeed. But perhaps you can see that it would be futile to try to stop
the common man from using "theory". In fact, I think that the better
educated common man these days does not quite mean by "theory" something
unsupported. It is an evolving situation.

True. In such discussions I make clear how I define certain terms. It is
enlightening for some people and avoids a lot circular argument.

I think we can at least both agree on this: where it is important that
the distinction between generally accepted programming languages and
markup is important and could actually lead people into real and
immediate error, one should be clear to define code as distinct from
mark up.

But I don't think we should all hold our breaths waiting for such a
context. And we better not be expecting any time soon a context where
someone needs some true and reasonable grasp of what is common or what
holds programming languages together on the one hand as distinct from
HTML mark up on the other.

Just by the way, is there something that tends to come up in human
discussion that needs what is common (in the sense of sufficient
conditions to qualify) or a set of explicable bonds that hold a family
of languages to qualify as programming (and thus deserving the property
of having *code*)?

What, for example, might be common (or family resembling) about the
following that would exclude HTML/CSS:

? A+BAT
? A+
? A++
? A# .NET
? A# (Axiom)
? Active Server Pages.Net
? A-0
? ABAP
? ABC
? ABC ALGOL
? ABLE
? ABSET
? ABSYS
? ACC
? Accent
? ActionScript
? Ace DASL
? ACT-III
? Ada
? APL
? AppleScript
? Arc
? AutoIt
? AWK
? B
? BACI
? Baja
? BASIC
? bc
? bcompile
? BCPL
? BeanShell
? BETA
? Bigwig
? Big Snake
? Bistro
? BLISS
? Blitz Basic
? BALM
? Blue
? Blue
? Boo
? Bourne shell
? Bourne-Again
? Boxx
? BPEL
? Brain***
? BUGSYS
? BuildProfessional
? BYOND
? C
? C--
? C-script
? C++ - ISO/IEC 14882
? C# - ISO/IEC 23270
? C shell (csh)
? Caché ObjectScript
? Caml
? Cat
? Cayenne
? C-BOT
? Cecil
? Cesil
? Cg
? Ch interpreter
? Chapel
? CHAIN
? Charity
? Chef
? Chey
? CHILL
? CHIP-8
? chomski
? Chrome
? ChucK
? Cilk
? CICS
? CL
? Clarion
? Clean
? Clipper
? CLIST
? Clojure
? CLU
? CMS-2
? COBOL - ISO/IEC 1989
? CobolScript
? Cobra
? CODE
? ColdFusion
? COMAL
? Common Intermediate Language
? Common Lisp
? Component Pascal
? COMIT
? Concurrent Clean
? Constraint Handling Rules
? CORAL66
? Corn
? CorVision
? COWSEL
? CPL
? CSP
? Csound
? Cue
? Curl
? Curry
? Cyclone
? D
? Dao
? DASL
? DASL
? DarkBASIC
? DarkBASIC Professional
? Dataflex
? Datalog
? dBASE
? dc
? Deesel
? Delphi
? Dialect
? DinkC
? DCL
? Dialog Manager
? DIBOL
? DL/I
? Dream Maker
? Dylan
? Dynace
? E
? Ease
? EASY
? Easy PL/I
? EASYTRIEVE PLUS
? eC (Ecere C)
? ECMAScript
? eDeveloper
? Edinburgh IMP
? Einstein
? Eiffel
? Elan
? elastiC
? Elf
? Emacs Lisp
? EGL Programming Language (EGL)
? Epigram
? Erlang
? Escapade
? Esterel
? Euclid
? Euphoria
? Euler
? EXEC
? EXEC2
? F
? F#
? Factor
? Fan
? Felix
? Ferite
? F#
? FL
? FLOW-MATIC
? FOCAL
? FOCUS
? FOIL
? FORMAC
? Formula language
? Forth
? Fortran - ISO/IEC 1539
? Fortress
? FoxPro
? FP
? Frag Script
? Franz Lisp
? Frink
? Frontier
? F-Script
? GAAMIL
? GM
? Gambas
? Game Maker Language
? G-code
? General Algebraic Modeling System
? Generic Java
? Gibiane
? G (LabVIEW)
? Gödel
? Godiva
? GOTRAN (see IBM 1620)
? GOTO++
? GPSS
? GraphTalk
? GRASS
? Green
? Groovy
? HAL/S
? HAScript
? Haskell
? HaXe
? High Level Assembly
? HyperTalk
? IBM Basic assembly language
? IBM RPG
? ICI
? Icon
? IDL
? IKE
? IMP
? Inform
? Information Processing Language (IPL)
? Informix-4GL
? Io
? IPTSCRAE
? Interactive System Productivity Facility
? J
? J#
? J++
? JADE
? JAG
? Jal
? Janus
? Java
? JavaScript
? Jim++
? JCL
? Join Java
? JOSS
? Joule
? JOVIAL
? Joy
? JScript
? JSP
? J2EE
? J2ME
? K
? KEE
? Kiev
? Korn Shell
? KIF
? Kite
? Kogut
? KRC
? KRL
? KRYPTON
? L
? LabVIEW
? Lagoona
? LANSA
? Lasso
? Lava
? Leda
? Lead
? Leadwerks Script
? Legoscript
? Leopard
? Lexico
? Lfyre
? Liberty BASIC
? Limbo
? Limnor
? LINC
? Lingo
? Lisaac
? Lisp - ISO/IEC 13816
? Lite-C
? Logo
? LOLCODE
? LPC
? LSL
? LSE
? Lua
? Lucid
? Lush
? Lustre
? LYaPAS
? LSL
? M4
? MacRuby
? MAD
? MADCAP
? MAGIC - See eDeveloper
? Magik
? Magma
? MapBasic
? Maple
? MAPPER
? M-A-R-E-K
? MARK-IV
? Mary
? Mathematica
? MATLAB
? MATA
? Maxima
? MaxScript
? Multiprocessor C#
? Mercury
? Mesa
? METAL
? Michigan Algorithm Decoder
? Microcode
? MicroScript
? MillScript
? MIMIC
? Mindscript
? Miranda
? Miva
? ML
? Moby
? MODCAP
? Model 204 User Language
? Modula
? Modula-2
? Modula-3
? Mondrian
? Mortran
? Moto
? MOUSE
? MSIL
? MSL
? MONO
? MUMPS
? Napier88
? Natural
? Nemerle
? NESL
? Net.Data
? Neuralware
? NewLISP
? Newspeak
? NewtonScript
? NGL
? Nial
? NXT-G
? Nice
? Nickle
? Nosica
? NQC
? Nu
? o:XML
? Oberon
? Objective Modula-2
? Object Lisp
? ObjectLOGO
? Object Pascal
? Objective-C
? Objective-J
? Objective Caml
? Obliq
? Objectstar
? ObjectView
? Ocaml
? occam
? occam-¼
? Octave
? OmniMark
? Opal
? Open programming language
? OPS5
? ORCA/Modula-2
? Organiser Programming Language (OPL)
? Oxygene
? Oz
? PARI/GP
? Parser
? Pascal - ISO 7185
? Pawn
? PBASIC
? PCASTL
? PEARL
? Perl
? Perl Data Language
? PHP
? Pico
? Piet
? Pike
? PIKT
? PILOT
? Pizza
? PL 11
? PL/0
? PL/8
? PL/B
? PL/C
? PL/I - ISO 6160
? PL/M
? PL/P
? PL/SQL
? Plankalkül
? PLD
? PLEX
? PLEXIL
? Pliant
? PNGlish
? PPL
? POP-11
? Poplog
? PORTRAN
? PostScript
? Ppc++
? Processing
? Prograph
? Progress 4GL
? Prolog
? Turbo Prolog
? Promela
? Protheus
? PRO-IV
? ProvideX
? Python
? Q
? Qi
? QtScript
? QuakeC
? QPL
? Quikcomp
? R
? R++
? Rascal
? Ratfiv
? Ratfor
? RBScript
? rc
? REPL
? REBOL
? Recital
? Red
? Redcode
? REDO
? REFAL
? Reia
? Revolution
? REXX
? Rigal
? Rlab
? Robot Scripting Language
? RPG
? RPL
? RScript
? Ruby
? Russell Programming Language
? REALBasic
? S
? S2
? S-PLUS
? S-Lang
? SAIL
? SAKO
? SAM76
? SAS
? Sather
? Scala
? ScalPL
? SCAR
? SCATRAN
? Scheme
? Scilab
? Script.NET
? Sed
? Seed7
? Self
? SETL
? Shadow Programming Interface
? ShadowScript
? Shift Script
? SIGNAL
? SiMPLE
? SIMPOL
? SIMSCRIPT
? Simula
? SISAL
? Slate
? SLIP
? SMALL
? Small
? Smalltalk
? SNOBOL
? SPITBOL
? Snowball
? SPARK
? Spice
? SPIN
? SP/k
? SPL/1
? SPS
? Squirrel
? SR
? SRF
? SSL
? Standard ML
? StringLang
? Subtext
? SuperCollider
? Suneido
? SYMPL
? SyncCharts
? Synergy/DE
? SystemVerilog
? T
? TACL
? TACPOL
? TagsMe
? TADS
? TIE
? Transaction Application Language
? Tcl
? Transact-SQL
? teco
? TELCOMP
? Telon
? Tempo
? thinBasic
? Titanium
? TI-Basic
? Today
? Tom
? TOM
? Topspeed - see Clarion
? TorqueScript
? tpu
? Trac
? Trine
? TTCN
? Turbo Pascal
? Turing
? TUTOR
? Tutorial D
? TXL
? Ubercode
? Ultra 32
? Unicon
? Uniface
? Unix shell
? Unlambda
? UnrealScript
? Use
? Vala
? VBA
? VDM++
? VDM-SL
? Verilog
? VHDL
? Visual Assembler
? Visual Basic
? Visual Basic .NET
? Visual DataFlex
? Visual DialogScript
? Visual FoxPro
? Visual J++
? Visual Objects
? VBScript
? VX-REXX
? Vvvv
? Water
? WATFOR
? WATFIV
? WAXHTML
? WebQL
? Whitespace
? Winbatch
? WinDev
? Windows PowerShell
? X++
? X10
? Xbase++
? XBL
? xbScript
? xHarbour
? XL
? XOTcl
? XPL
? XPL0
? XQuery
? XSLT
? Y
? YACC
? YAFL
? Yellow
? Yorick
? Y
? Z++
? Z notation
? Zonnon
? ZOPL
? ZPL

I do not deny that there would be things. I am just a bit wary that it
would tend to come up.

--
dorayme
.

Loading