3 Feb
2007
3 Feb
'07
3:32 p.m.
Warren Wolfe wrote:
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 13:35 -0600, Jim Isbell, W5JAI wrote:
To Warren:
Jim's use of the word 'enabled' may not have been typical in the
circumstance,
but it was perfectly understandable what he meant. The word 'enabled' can be
used in a fairly general manner.
I had no difficulty discerning condescension in your response above, and I was
certainly more impressed by Jim's simple request to avoid it than by your
subsequent response.
As you wish to be pedantic about the use of words: one does not "load a
language" onto a machine, one loads a compiler or interpreter program for a
language.
And to further make the point: once one has loaded the compiler or interpreter
for a language, the machine has then been enabled to 'comprehend' that
language. Actually, I would suggest Jim's terminology is really the more
technically accurate. If you disagree, you may wish to review or educate
yourself about the distinction between a language and it's compiler or interpreter.
I still have several of all three and at the time
I would use my
TRS-80 whenever I was programming. The others were FUN machines made for
children while the TRS-80 was capable of programming in BASIC, FORTRAN,
NLOS, FORTH and Assembly to name only the languages that I had enabled on
my machine.
"Enabled?" Uh, it APPEARS that you don't understand the concept.
Languages are LOADED on a machine, they're not there waiting to be
"enabled" and then used -- other than the BASIC in ROM on several
machines, the IBM included. Any language could be implemented on either
the Apple or the Commodore, and a wide variety WERE implemented -- I'll
leave it to the outraged fans of both camps to provide a detailed
list... Peace,
Warren E. Wolfe
wizard at voyager.net
I have noticed during your tenure-to-date on the list that for someone with
"Peace" in your sig, you certainly are (to be kind about it..) argumentative.