Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: don't { use Perl }

[Anonymous Monk]

The speaker/listener dichotomy is something you first brought into this discussion in this node, and continued to focus upon in this one. You can't have it both ways. Your intial forays into this discussion were all about programmer as speaker and machine as listener, something I not only disagreed very strongly with, but I think is a fundamental, categorical flaw in your reasoning on this particular topic. Please reread my earlier response to your introduction of the speaker/listener dichotomy.

[ignatz]

Look anonymous dude, the moment that saying to you

$you->dump();
sub dump {
   $person = Mammal::new("Anonymous Monk");
   $person->defecate();
}

causes you to crap your pants is the moment when I'll by your computer languages are meant for humans and not machines stuff. If it does, you let me know, and I'll admit defeat in this debate.

()-()
 \"/
  `                                                     

[Anonymous Monk]

And there's your categorical error once again. You are confusing the instructions with the medium we use to express those instructions. The compiled instructions are meant for a machine to execute. The higher level language we use is meant to be written and read by humans, not computers. That we have programs (gcc) that can reduce that language to a particular sequence of states in a machine is not germane to the discussion. A human could also tanslate/compile them thus so (with adequate effort), or write them directly. The higher level language is strictly for humans to use to facilitate writing, reading, and understanding the sequences of instructions that compose a computer program. But I'll cease and desist now because you seem to insist on being simply argumentative and making remarks involving bodily wastes rather than carrying on a reasonable discussion.

[ignatz]

Awwwww, now anony. Don't be cross. I'm sorry. Can't a mouse use a little humor to try to make his point?

Friends???

()-()
 \"/
  `