9 May
2010
9 May
'10
2:58 a.m.
On 9 May 2010, at 00:02, cctalk-request at classiccmp.org wrote:
Message: 28
Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 15:12:25 +0100
From: "Andrew Burton" <aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Message-ID: <013701caef02$62da30c0$87fdf93e at user8459cef6fa>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Cisin" <cisin at xenosoft.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 11:08 PM
Subject: RE: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
Indeed.
I taught beginning FORTRAN in the 1980s at Merritt College (community
college), and would not mind doing it again, if we could get a quorum for
the classes.
COBOL is gone from our curriculum :-(
RPG is gone from our curriculum :-)
FORTRAN is gone from our curriculum :-(
APL is gone from our curriculum :-(
BASIC is gone from our curriculum :-(
The administration has cancelled C
The administration has cancelled C#
The administration has cancelled ASM
We are down to "Using Microsoft Office", "VISUAL BASIC",
and C++ (slated for cancellation soon)
The CIS departments are circling the drain.
That sucks. I am *so* glad I never went on to further education
after
secondary school. I have learnt more on my own (thanks to books, people on
this list and retro computers) than I ever would have in *modern courses*. A
piece of paper doesn't make me a good coder, good software written by me
does.
Fair enough but I am glad that I took a computer science degree (1971-74), though I must
say that some of the people on my course who got better grade degrees used to come to me
for advice when their programs did not work.
There is now a degrading of the term programming to include entering data on things like
an on board computer of a car to configuring spreadsheets and designing web pages.
How can BASIC not be taught? Every computer has
it's own version of BASIC,
Sorry I have to disagree there. There are MANY computers including modern ones which do
not support BASIC. If you restrict it to modern desktop and laptop machines then you are
probably correct but you are ignoring many pre 1980 machines and nearly all the embedded
computers like PIC chips.
A better choice would be C with the 1999 extensions. C++ is a good language but probably
not for beginners as it is to easy to write opaque programs which beginners seem to think
are good code because they are clever. As I hope all here would agree, a good program is
the simplest you can write to do the required task, and that will mean it is easy to
maintain (given adequate variable/function/method names and comments for the concepts you
woke up with in the middle of the night).
Or Pascal. I think almost any block structured language is better for beginners than
Basic.
whereas (as I understand it) Visual Basic is only
available for modern
computers.
9 May
9 May
8:45 a.m.
On May 9, 2010, at 5:58 AM, Roger Holmes wrote:
There is now a degrading of the term programming to
include
entering data on things like an on board computer of a car to
configuring spreadsheets and designing web pages.
This has been going on for a while, and it's maddening. "HTML
programming" is a term I hear with some frequency. Cluelessness
abounds.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
10:17 a.m.
At 10:45 AM 5/9/2010, Dave McGuire wrote:
This has been going on for a while, and it's
maddening. "HTML
programming" is a term I hear with some frequency. Cluelessness
abounds.
You have a better term for the hodgepodge of tools and languages
used in contemporary webs? Maybe "web developer"? Who gets hired
for knowing only HTML and not any ancillary language to go along with it?
- John
10:37 a.m.
On May 9, 2010, at 1:17 PM, John Foust wrote:
Yes, that term is accurate. It is not programming.
This has been
going on for a while, and it's maddening. "HTML
programming" is a term I hear with some frequency. Cluelessness
abounds.
You have a better term for the hodgepodge of tools and languages
used in contemporary webs? Maybe "web developer"? Who gets hired for knowing only HTML and not any
ancillary language
to go along with it?
Actually, very few people get hired for even knowing HTML, because
most web developers don't know HTML. The vast majority of HTML on
the WWW today, easily 95% is program-generated. I'm not talking
about dynamic sites, I'm talking about authoring tools like
Dreamweaver. Writing HTML in an editor is considered "old school"
and today's web developers call it, incorrectly, "programming".
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
10 May
10 May
10:50 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave McGuire" <mcguire at neurotica.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
On May 9, 2010, at 1:17 PM, John Foust wrote:
Yes, that term is accurate. It is not programming.
You can usually tell program generated HTML from hand-coded HTML. With the
former,
each HTML tag is on a new line, whereas with the latter the code is in a
format specific to the user. For example, when doing tables I usually group
the Table Row and Table Data/Header tags on the same lines.
It would be interesting to see how many web developers could actually
correct HTML code, should an error occur.
I self-taught myself HTML code back in 2000, simply by looking at the source
of some webpages and making a few notes. Now, I use HTML guide websites to
keep up with the newer tags that come about, though I do very little HTML
coding these days (my website hasn't been updated in a few years, and
Geocities has officially closed anyway), except for my 'Infobase' (an
offline collection of pages with useful information regarding computers,
which I use as guides).
Regards,
Andrew B
aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk
This has
been going on for a while, and it's maddening. "HTML
programming" is a term I hear with some frequency. Cluelessness
abounds.
You have a better term for the hodgepodge of tools and languages
used in contemporary webs? Maybe "web developer"? Who gets hired for knowing only HTML and not any
ancillary language
to go along with it?
Actually, very few people get hired for even knowing HTML, because
most web developers don't know HTML. The vast majority of HTML on
the WWW today, easily 95% is program-generated. I'm not talking
about dynamic sites, I'm talking about authoring tools like
Dreamweaver. Writing HTML in an editor is considered "old school"
and today's web developers call it, incorrectly, "programming".
9 May
9 May
10:37 a.m.
On 9 May 2010 at 12:17, John Foust wrote:
You have a better term for the hodgepodge of tools and
languages
used in contemporary webs? Maybe "web developer"? Who gets hired for
knowing only HTML and not any ancillary language to go along with it?
"Hodgepodge" is exactly the right term. How much of the web is
actually HTML 1.0-viewable now? Has anyone tried doing any
meaningful web browsing with an old copy of Mosaic?
--Chuck
10 May
10 May
2:05 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 9 May 2010 at 12:17, John Foust wrote:
Last time I looked, Netscape 0.9 was sufficiently unuseful due to its
not sending a Host: header with its requests, which kept it from
getting at most of 2002's web sites, let alone today's. This wasn't
about HTML though, it was about HTTP, and the direction taken probably
did a lot to conserve IPv4 address space.
-Frank McConnell
You have a better term for the hodgepodge of
tools and languages
used in contemporary webs? Maybe "web developer"? Who gets hired for
knowing only HTML and not any ancillary language to go along with it?
"Hodgepodge" is exactly the right term. How much of the web is
actually HTML 1.0-viewable now? Has anyone tried doing any
meaningful web browsing with an old copy of Mosaic?
2:33 p.m.
On 5/10/10 5:05 PM, Frank McConnell wrote:
Chuck Guzis wrote:
It did a tremendous amount to conserve address space. Name-based
virtual hosts saved our butts. The Internet would be a very different
place if it weren't for that scheme.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
On 9 May 2010 at 12:17, John Foust wrote:
Last time I looked, Netscape 0.9 was sufficiently unuseful due to its
not sending a Host: header with its requests, which kept it from
getting at most of 2002's web sites, let alone today's. This wasn't
about HTML though, it was about HTTP, and the direction taken probably
did a lot to conserve IPv4 address space. You have a better term for the hodgepodge of
tools and languages
used in contemporary webs? Maybe "web developer"? Who gets hired for
knowing only HTML and not any ancillary language to go along with it?
"Hodgepodge" is exactly the right term. How much of the web is
actually HTML 1.0-viewable now? Has anyone tried doing any
meaningful web browsing with an old copy of Mosaic?
2:42 p.m.
On 10 May 2010 at 17:33, Dave McGuire wrote:
It did a tremendous amount to conserve address
space. Name-based
virtual hosts saved our butts. The Internet would be a very different
place if it weren't for that scheme.
For one thing, it'd be IPv6 based--it's what, 12 years old this year?
--Chuck
2:59 p.m.
On 5/10/10 5:42 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
...and still dead in the water.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
It did a
tremendous amount to conserve address space. Name-based
virtual hosts saved our butts. The Internet would be a very different
place if it weren't for that scheme.
For one thing, it'd be IPv6 based--it's what, 12 years old this year? 
8:02 p.m.
On Monday 10 May 2010, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 5/10/10 5:42 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
...and still dead in the water.
Really?
It
did a tremendous amount to conserve address space.
Name-based virtual hosts saved our butts. The Internet would be a
very different place if it weren't for that scheme.
For one thing, it'd be IPv6 based--it's what, 12 years old this
year? From my laptop:
pat at comet:~$ ping6 ipv6.google.com
PING ipv6.google.com(iy-in-x67.1e100.net) 56 data bytes
64 bytes from iy-in-x67.1e100.net: icmp_seq=1 ttl=56 time=67.5 ms
Seems to be working just fine for me.
Pat
--
Purdue University Research Computing --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
8:13 p.m.
On May 10, 2010, at 11:02 PM, Patrick Finnegan wrote:
...and still dead in the water.
Really?
From my laptop:
pat at comet:~$ ping6 ipv6.google.com
PING ipv6.google.com(iy-in-x67.1e100.net) 56 data bytes
64 bytes from iy-in-x67.1e100.net: icmp_seq=1 ttl=56 time=67.5 ms
Seems to be working just fine for me.
You know what I mean, Pat. I played with it pretty
enthusiastically too...a decade ago. I hope (sorta) that it does
take off.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
It did a
tremendous amount to conserve address space.
Name-based virtual hosts saved our butts. The Internet would be a
very different place if it weren't for that scheme.
For one thing, it'd be IPv6 based--it's what, 12 years old this
year? 
3:15 p.m.
You have a
better term for the hodgepodge of tools and languages
used in contemporary webs? Maybe "web developer"? Who gets hired for
knowing only HTML and not any ancillary language to go along with it?
"Hodgepodge" is exactly the right term. How much of the web is
actually HTML 1.0-viewable now? Has anyone tried doing any
meaningful web browsing with an old copy of Mosaic? 
9 May
9 May
12:15 p.m.
Dave McGuire wrote:
On May 9, 2010, at 5:58 AM, Roger Holmes wrote:
Some of the new features grafted onto HTML5 could be considered
programming constructs, no?
Peace... Sridhar
There is now a degrading of the term programming
to include entering
data on things like an on board computer of a car to configuring
spreadsheets and designing web pages.
This has been going on for a while, and it's maddening. "HTML
programming" is a term I hear with some frequency. Cluelessness abounds.
12:28 p.m.
On May 9, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Some of the new features grafted onto HTML5 could be considered
programming constructs, no?
I don't know, I haven't looked at them. Does it have variables,
conditionals, and looping constructs?
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
There is now a degrading of the term programming to
include entering
data on things like an on board computer of a car to configuring
spreadsheets and designing web pages.
This has been going on for a while, and it's maddening. "HTML
programming" is a term I hear with some frequency. Cluelessness
abounds.
12:27 p.m.
Dave McGuire wrote:
On May 9, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Some of the new features grafted onto HTML5 could be considered
programming constructs, no?
I don't know, I haven't looked at them. Does it have variables,
conditionals, and looping constructs?
Variables, yes. Conditionals, yes. Looping, not sure. Have to go look.
Peace... Sridhar
There is now a degrading of the term programming to
include entering
data on things like an on board computer of a car to configuring
spreadsheets and designing web pages.
This has been going on for a while, and it's maddening. "HTML
programming" is a term I hear with some frequency. Cluelessness abounds.
12:38 p.m.
On May 9, 2010, at 3:27 PM, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
I don't know, I haven't looked at them. Does it have variables,
conditionals, and looping constructs?
Variables, yes. Conditionals, yes. Looping, not sure. Have to go
look.
Cool. In that case, I will happily acknowledge that anyone who
writes such constructs correctly BY HAND in HTML5 is a "programmer",
or at the very least, "a web developer who occasionally dabbles in
programming".
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
> There is
now a degrading of the term programming to include
> entering
> data on things like an on board computer of a car to configuring
> spreadsheets and designing web pages.
This has been going on for a while, and it's maddening. "HTML
programming" is a term I hear with some frequency. Cluelessness
abounds.
Some of the new features grafted onto HTML5 could be considered
programming constructs, no? 
12:50 p.m.
On 09May 2010, at 15:38 , Dave McGuire wrote:
On May 9, 2010, at 3:27 PM, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Variables, yes. Conditionals, yes. Looping, not sure. Have to go
look.
Cool. In that case, I will happily acknowledge that anyone who
writes such constructs correctly BY HAND in HTML5 is a "programmer",
or at the very least, "a web developer who occasionally dabbles in
programming".
-Dave
This leads me to wonder, what terms would you use for someone who
specializes in computer languages for structuring and formatting data,
such as HTML/CSS or Docbook XML (but not limited to these by any
stretch)
Some of the new features grafted onto HTML5 could be considered
programming constructs, no?
I don't know, I haven't looked at them. Does it have variables,
conditionals, and looping constructs?
1:02 p.m.
On May 9, 2010, at 3:50 PM, Kirn Gill wrote:
Cool. In that case, I will happily acknowledge that anyone who
writes such constructs correctly BY HAND in HTML5 is a
"programmer", or at the very least, "a web developer who
occasionally dabbles in programming".
This leads me to wonder, what terms would you use for someone who
specializes in computer languages for structuring and formatting
data, such as HTML/CSS or Docbook XML (but not limited to these by
any stretch)
Well, they're not programming languages, they're markup
languages. Writing in a programming language is programming.
Writing in a markup language is...marking up, perhaps?
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
> Some of
the new features grafted onto HTML5 could be considered
> programming constructs, no?
I don't know, I haven't looked at them. Does it have variables,
conditionals, and looping constructs?
Variables, yes. Conditionals, yes. Looping, not sure. Have to
go look. 
1:24 p.m.
On Sun, 9 May 2010 16:02:15 -0400, Dave McGuire wrote:
On May 9, 2010, at 3:50 PM, Kirn Gill wrote:
>>>>> Some of the new features grafted onto HTML5 could be considered
>>>>> programming constructs, no?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know, I haven't looked at them. Does it have variables,
>>>> conditionals, and looping constructs?
>>>
>>> Variables, yes. Conditionals, yes. Looping, not sure. Have to
>>> go look.
>>
>> Cool. In that case, I will happily acknowledge that anyone who
>> writes such constructs correctly BY HAND in HTML5 is a
>> "programmer", or at the very least, "a web developer who
>> occasionally dabbles in programming".
>
> This leads me to wonder, what terms would you use for someone who
> specializes in computer languages for structuring and formatting
> data, such as HTML/CSS or Docbook XML (but not limited to these by
> any stretch)
Well, they're not programming languages,
they're markup
languages. Writing in a programming language is programming.
Writing in a markup language is...marking up, perhaps?
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
"Codeing" cover both the markup component, as well as much of the scripting done
these days that results in
HTMLx being sent directly to the "eyeballs" in responce to a http: get or post
command.
on that note:
Hacking/using/reformatting Javascript is codeing, createing new Javascript applications
from scratch is
programming.
The Other Bob
1:46 p.m.
On May 9, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Bob Bradlee wrote:
Well, they're not programming languages, they're markup
languages. Writing in a programming language is programming.
Writing in a markup language is...marking up, perhaps?
"Codeing" cover both the markup component, as well as much of the
scripting done these days that results in
HTMLx being sent directly to the "eyeballs" in responce to a http:
get or post command.
Hmm yes, I can get behind that. Coding (sp!) is a good term for
this, and is common in other industries.
>>>
Some of the new features grafted onto HTML5 could be considered
>>> programming constructs, no?
>>
>> I don't know, I haven't looked at them. Does it have variables,
>> conditionals, and looping constructs?
>
> Variables, yes. Conditionals, yes. Looping, not sure. Have to
> go look.
Cool. In that case, I will happily acknowledge that anyone who
writes such constructs correctly BY HAND in HTML5 is a
"programmer", or at the very least, "a web developer who
occasionally dabbles in programming".
This leads me to wonder, what terms would you use for someone who
specializes in computer languages for structuring and formatting
data, such as HTML/CSS or Docbook XML (but not limited to these by
any stretch) on that note:
Hacking/using/reformatting Javascript is codeing, createing new
Javascript applications from scratch is
programming.
But this, I can't quite get behind. Maybe not "using/
reformatting", but hacking Javascript is no less programming than is
hacking C. Javascript is a full-fledged (and very complete!)
programming language in every sense.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
3:01 p.m.
On Sun, 9 May 2010, Dave McGuire wrote:
Well, they're not programming languages,
they're markup
languages. Writing in a programming language is programming.
Writing in a markup language is...marking up, perhaps?
about 20 years ago, I worte some trivial programs in Postscript. I'll
maintain that that WAS programming, albeit not very significant.
BUT, as soon as it gets labelled "programming", the jerk who clicks the
"Postscript" output button in the page making program that he uses
(without mastery) will start calling himself a "programmer".
Competent use of such programs is an important skill, and fundamental to
successful graphic arts production, but "programming" it ain't.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
3:40 p.m.
On May 9, 2010, at 6:01 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
Too true. That was definitely programming, though, as PostSript
is definitely a full-fledged programming language in every way. Who
was it that wrote an accounting system in PostScript many moons ago,
just to prove the point?
Well,
they're not programming languages, they're markup
languages. Writing in a programming language is programming.
Writing in a markup language is...marking up, perhaps?
about 20 years ago, I worte some trivial programs in Postscript. I'll
maintain that that WAS programming, albeit not very significant.
BUT, as soon as it gets labelled "programming", the jerk who clicks
the
"Postscript" output button in the page making program that he uses
(without mastery) will start calling himself a "programmer". Competent use of such programs is an important skill,
and
fundamental to
successful graphic arts production, but "programming" it ain't.
Absolutely.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
10 May
10 May
12:38 p.m.
about 20 years ago, I worte some trivial programs in
Postscript. I'll
Postscript is certainly a programming language. I would agree that
writing it by hand is programming.
maintain that that WAS programming, albeit not very
significant.
BUT, as soon as it gets labelled "programming", the jerk who clicks the
"Postscript" output button in the page making program that he uses
(without mastery) will start calling himself a "programmer".
Agreed...
Another example would be TeX and/or Metafont. When used in the normal way
I would n't claim it was 'programming. But both are in fact complete
programming languages It is techncially possible (although very
inefficient) to do anything computable using them. At which point I would
claim you were programming.
I've come across several progrmas, from opearing system 'SYSGEN' programs
to application geneators which output code in a particlaur prgoramming
language (in the former case, they patch the assembly language or
whatever source code to include the options you want, to access I/O
devices at particular addresses, and so on). However, although the output
is a program, I wou;dn't call using SYSGEN to be 'programming'
-tony
1:13 p.m.
Another example would be TeX and/or Metafont. When
used in the normal way
I would n't claim it was 'programming. But both are in fact complete
programming languages It is techncially possible (although very
inefficient) to do anything computable using them. At which point I would
claim you were programming.
Conclusion: HTML is not Turing-complete.
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. -----
1:27 p.m.
From: spectre at floodgap.com
Subject: Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 13:13:47 -0700
Another good example of a nonstandard programming language - Postscript
In his column in the Radio Electronics mag, Don Lancaster (TTL Cookbook) was always able
to make it do amazing things.
He has put a bunch of this up on his website:
http://www.tinaja.com/post01.asp
Randy Dawson
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:…
Another example would be TeX and/or Metafont.
When used in the normal way
I would n't claim it was 'programming. But both are in fact complete
programming languages It is techncially possible (although very
inefficient) to do anything computable using them. At which point I would
claim you were programming.
Conclusion: HTML is not Turing-complete.
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. -----
9 May
9 May
3:58 p.m.
> This has been going on for a while, and it's
maddening. "HTML
> programming" is a term I hear with some frequency. Cluelessness abounds.
On Sun, 9 May 2010, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
Some of the new features grafted onto HTML5 could be
considered
programming constructs, no?
Yes
But, the majority of users don't even SEE the HTML. They click the
"HTML5" button on their "web-making" program.
Whatever happened to giving the students a simple project to do with hand
coding HTML?
6:39 p.m.
This has been going on for a while, and it's
maddening. "HTML
programming" is a term I hear with some frequency. Cluelessness abounds.
Some
of the new features grafted onto HTML5 could be considered
programming constructs, no?
9:24 p.m.
On May 9, 2010, at 9:39 PM, Cameron Kaiser wrote:
Yes
But, the majority of users don't even SEE the HTML. They click the
"HTML5" button on their "web-making" program.
Whatever happened to giving the students a simple project to do
with hand
coding HTML?
I still handcode all my web pages, but I get told that I should be
using a
content management system instead, whereupon I hit them with my
cane and
use my dentures to leave bitemarks in their arm.
That's not "old" just because the industry has become dumbed
down. Most of today's "professional" "web developers" have never
seen HTML.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
This has been
going on for a while, and it's maddening. "HTML
programming" is a term I hear with some frequency. Cluelessness
abounds.
Some of the new features grafted onto HTML5 could be considered
programming constructs, no?
11:12 p.m.
Cameron Kaiser wrote:
Yes
But, the majority of users don't even SEE the HTML. They click the
"HTML5" button on their "web-making" program.
Whatever happened to giving the students a simple project to do with hand
coding HTML?
I still handcode all my web pages, but I get told that I should be using a
content management system instead, whereupon I hit them with my cane and
use my dentures to leave bitemarks in their arm.
Do they then get off your lawn?
Peace... Sridhar
This has been
going on for a while, and it's maddening. "HTML
programming" is a term I hear with some frequency. Cluelessness abounds.
Some
of the new features grafted onto HTML5 could be considered
programming constructs, no?
10 May
10 May
12:36 p.m.
I still
handcode all my web pages, but I get told that I should be using a
content management system instead, whereupon I hit them with my cane and
use my dentures to leave bitemarks in their arm.
Do they then get off your lawn?
10:13 a.m.
Well, a "hello world" "programme" in HTML only takes 1 line of code!!
:)
Regards,
Andrew B
aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave McGuire" <mcguire at neurotica.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
On May 9, 2010, at 5:58 AM, Roger Holmes wrote:
There is now a degrading of the term programming
to include
entering data on things like an on board computer of a car to
configuring spreadsheets and designing web pages.
This has been going on for a while, and it's maddening. "HTML
programming" is a term I hear with some frequency. Cluelessness
abounds.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
6:58 p.m.
Fred Cisin wrote:
I figure 2 lines.
On Mon, 10 May 2010, Andrew Burton wrote:
10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD"
20 STOP
Well, a "hello world"
"programme" in HTML only takes 1 line of code!! :)
Well, a "hello world" "programme" in BASIC only takes 1 line of
code!! :)
That eliminates a lot of frustration for somebody's FIRST exposure to
programming.
8:20 p.m.
Fred Cisin wrote:
> 10 PRINT "HELLO WORLD"
> 20 STOP
>>
> I figure 2 lines.
With Microsoft BASIC interpreters, you can get away with leaving off the
explicit termination. 'course getting used to implicit termination leads
to some dandy surprises on their first ASM programs :-)
Why? ... All good programers start with PAL on a PDP ## computer. :-)
Ben.
11 May
11 May
1:44 p.m.
On Mon, 10 May 2010, Andrew Burton wrote:
Not on my oldest BASIC machine. It is 2 lines :
10 DISP "HELLO WORLD"
20 END
The END is required, you get an error message if it's not there. I am
sure from the somewhat non-standed BASIC (DISP rather than PRINT) you can
work out what machine it is.
-tony
Well, a "hello world"
"programme" in HTML only takes 1 line of code!! :)
Well, a "hello world" "programme" in BASIC only takes 1 line of
code!! :) 
2:11 p.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-
bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Tony Duell
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 1:45 PM
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
The ultimate redundant statement: "non-standard BASIC". Yes, yes, I know
there's an ANSI standard - but from what I've seen, it gets less respect than
either Rodney Dangerfield or George W. Bush. -- Ian
On Mon, 10 May 2010, Andrew Burton wrote:
> Well, a "hello world" "programme" in HTML only takes 1 line of
code!! :)
Well, a "hello world" "programme" in BASIC only takes 1 line of
code!! :)
Not on my oldest BASIC machine. It is 2 lines :
10 DISP "HELLO WORLD"
20 END
The END is required, you get an error message if it's not there. I am
sure from the somewhat non-standed BASIC (DISP rather than PRINT) you
can
work out what machine it is.
-tony
13 May
13 May
2:18 p.m.
New subject: HTML coding ( was Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
Actually, what I meant (and didn't say) is that a "hello world" program in
HTML these days takes no code at all, other than the text "hello world"!
I just tested this on Firefox 2 before posting this reply. It seems that
some (all?) *current-ish* (giving myself some room to move there!) browsers
don't need the intro and outro HTML tags (e.g. HTML and BODY).
Regards,
Andrew B
aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Cisin" <cisin at xenosoft.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 1:00 AM
Subject: Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN
On Mon, 10 May 2010, Andrew Burton wrote:
Well, a "hello world"
"programme" in HTML only takes 1 line of code!! :)
Well, a "hello world" "programme" in BASIC only takes 1 line of
code!! :)
That eliminates a lot of frustration for somebody's FIRST exposure to
programming.
3 p.m.
New subject: HTML coding ( was Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
On May 13, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Andrew Burton wrote:
Actually, what I meant (and didn't say) is that a
"hello world"
program in
HTML these days takes no code at all, other than the text "hello
world"!
I just tested this on Firefox 2 before posting this reply. It seems
that
some (all?) *current-ish* (giving myself some room to move there!)
browsers
don't need the intro and outro HTML tags (e.g. HTML and BODY).
I don't recall any web browser ever actually requiring that in
order to spit out text.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
14 May
14 May
9:44 a.m.
New subject: HTML coding ( was Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave McGuire" <mcguire at neurotica.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: HTML coding ( was Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
On May 13, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Andrew Burton wrote:
So why do we have them?
Regards,
Andrew B
aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk
Actually, what I meant (and didn't say) is
that a "hello world"
program in
HTML these days takes no code at all, other than the text "hello
world"!
I just tested this on Firefox 2 before posting this reply. It seems
that
some (all?) *current-ish* (giving myself some room to move there!)
browsers
don't need the intro and outro HTML tags (e.g. HTML and BODY).
I don't recall any web browser ever actually requiring that in
order to spit out text.
10:39 a.m.
New subject: HTML coding ( was Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
On May 14, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Andrew Burton wrote:
So why do we have them?
Well, BODY is needed to differentiate from HEAD, if HEAD is
present. HTML is simply used to tell the browser that this is HTML,
as compared to XML or something else. The browser will typically
recognize it as such (or default to handling it as such) in the
absence of the HTML tag.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
Actually, what I meant (and didn't say) is that a
"hello world"
program in
HTML these days takes no code at all, other than the text "hello
world"!
I just tested this on Firefox 2 before posting this reply. It seems
that
some (all?) *current-ish* (giving myself some room to move there!)
browsers
don't need the intro and outro HTML tags (e.g. HTML and BODY).
I don't recall any web browser ever actually requiring that in
order to spit out text.
12:08 p.m.
New subject: HTML coding ( was Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave McGuire" <mcguire at neurotica.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: HTML coding ( was Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
On May 14, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Andrew Burton wrote:
So why do we have them?
Well, BODY is needed to differentiate from HEAD, if HEAD is
present. HTML is simply used to tell the browser that this is HTML,
as compared to XML or something else. The browser will typically
recognize it as such (or default to handling it as such) in the
absence of the HTML tag.
Ahh, that makes sense, sort of. HEAD should have a matching closing tag
though, which would still render the BODY tag useless. Unless the BODY tag
was used to set-up default page colour settings.
Regards,
Andrew B
aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk
Actually, what I meant (and didn't say) is that a
"hello world"
program in
HTML these days takes no code at all, other than the text "hello
world"!
I just tested this on Firefox 2 before posting this reply. It seems
that
some (all?) *current-ish* (giving myself some room to move there!)
browsers
don't need the intro and outro HTML tags (e.g. HTML and BODY).
I don't recall any web browser ever actually requiring that in
order to spit out text.
1:14 p.m.
New subject: HTML coding ( was Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
On 5/14/10 3:08 PM, Andrew Burton wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave McGuire"<mcguire at neurotica.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: HTML coding ( was Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
Well it's still useful from a cleanliness and symmetry perspective.
Having stuff enclosed with <HEAD> </HEAD> but followed by unencapsulated
body text is kinda ugly, IMO. Know what I mean?
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
On May 14, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Andrew Burton
wrote:
Well, BODY is needed to differentiate from HEAD, if HEAD is
present. HTML is simply used to tell the browser that this is HTML,
as compared to XML or something else. The browser will typically
recognize it as such (or default to handling it as such) in the
absence of the HTML tag.
Ahh, that makes sense, sort of. HEAD should have a matching closing tag
though, which would still render the BODY tag useless. Unless the BODY tag
was used to set-up default page colour settings. >
Actually, what I meant (and didn't say) is that a "hello world"
> program in
> HTML these days takes no code at all, other than the text "hello
> world"!
> I just tested this on Firefox 2 before posting this reply. It seems
> that
> some (all?) *current-ish* (giving myself some room to move there!)
> browsers
> don't need the intro and outro HTML tags (e.g. HTML and BODY).
I don't recall any web browser ever actually requiring that in
order to spit out text.
So why do we have them?
4:58 p.m.
New subject: HTML coding ( was Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave McGuire" <mcguire at neurotica.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: HTML coding ( was Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
I guess. Noone (except maybe software) bothers encapsulating paragraphs (P
tag) anymore though, with the P tag only used at the start of paragraphs. Or
atleast in the code I have seen.
Regards,
Andrew B
aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk
On 5/14/10 3:08 PM, Andrew Burton wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave McGuire"<mcguire at neurotica.com>
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
> <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 6:39 PM
> Subject: Re: HTML coding ( was Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
>
>
>> On May 14, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Andrew Burton wrote:
>>>>> Actually, what I meant (and didn't say) is that a "hello
world"
>>>>> program in
>>>>> HTML these days takes no code at all, other than the text
"hello
>>>>> world"!
>>>>> I just tested this on Firefox 2 before posting this reply. It seems
>>>>> that
>>>>> some (all?) *current-ish* (giving myself some room to move there!)
>>>>> browsers
>>>>> don't need the intro and outro HTML tags (e.g. HTML and BODY).
>>>>
>>>> I don't recall any web browser ever actually requiring that in
>>>> order to spit out text.
>>>
>>> So why do we have them?
>>
>> Well, BODY is needed to differentiate from HEAD, if HEAD is
>> present. HTML is simply used to tell the browser that this is HTML,
>> as compared to XML or something else. The browser will typically
>> recognize it as such (or default to handling it as such) in the
>> absence of the HTML tag.
>>
>
> Ahh, that makes sense, sort of. HEAD should have a matching closing tag
> though, which would still render the BODY tag useless. Unless the BODY
tag
was used to
set-up default page colour settings.
Well it's still useful from a cleanliness and symmetry perspective.
Having stuff enclosed with <HEAD> </HEAD> but followed by unencapsulated
body text is kinda ugly, IMO. Know what I mean?
6:01 p.m.
New subject: HTML coding ( was Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
On 5/14/10 7:58 PM, Andrew Burton wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave McGuire"<mcguire at neurotica.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: HTML coding ( was Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
I guess. Noone (except maybe software) bothers encapsulating paragraphs (P
tag) anymore though, with the P tag only used at the start of paragraphs. Or
atleast in the code I have seen.
It's actually kinda the opposite of that. <P> effectively didn't
*have* a closing tag many years ago; nobody ever did it. Only with the
XHTML stuff is there more of an insistence in opens with matching closes.
(not to be contrary, but..)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
On 5/14/10 3:08 PM, Andrew Burton wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave McGuire"<mcguire at neurotica.com>
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
> <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 6:39 PM
> Subject: Re: HTML coding ( was Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
>
>
>> On May 14, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Andrew Burton wrote:
>>>>> Actually, what I meant (and didn't say) is that a "hello
world"
>>>>> program in
>>>>> HTML these days takes no code at all, other than the text
"hello
>>>>> world"!
>>>>> I just tested this on Firefox 2 before posting this reply. It seems
>>>>> that
>>>>> some (all?) *current-ish* (giving myself some room to move there!)
>>>>> browsers
>>>>> don't need the intro and outro HTML tags (e.g. HTML and BODY).
>>>>
>>>> I don't recall any web browser ever actually requiring that in
>>>> order to spit out text.
>>>
>>> So why do we have them?
>>
>> Well, BODY is needed to differentiate from HEAD, if HEAD is
>> present. HTML is simply used to tell the browser that this is HTML,
>> as compared to XML or something else. The browser will typically
>> recognize it as such (or default to handling it as such) in the
>> absence of the HTML tag.
>>
>
> Ahh, that makes sense, sort of. HEAD should have a matching closing tag
> though, which would still render the BODY tag useless. Unless the BODY
tag
was used
to set-up default page colour settings.
Well it's still useful from a cleanliness and symmetry perspective.
Having stuff enclosed with<HEAD> </HEAD> but followed by unencapsulated
body text is kinda ugly, IMO. Know what I mean?
15 May
15 May
10:48 a.m.
New subject: HTML coding ( was Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave McGuire" <mcguire at neurotica.com>
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: HTML coding ( was Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
Oh, right. I didn't know that.
Regards,
Andrew B
aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk
On 5/14/10 7:58 PM, Andrew Burton wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave McGuire"<mcguire at neurotica.com>
> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts"
> <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 9:14 PM
> Subject: Re: HTML coding ( was Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
>> Having stuff enclosed with<HEAD> </HEAD> but followed by
unencapsulated
>> body text is kinda ugly, IMO. Know what I
mean?
>>
>
> I guess. Noone (except maybe software) bothers encapsulating paragraphs
(P
> tag) anymore though, with the P tag only used at
the start of
paragraphs. Or
atleast in the
code I have seen.
It's actually kinda the opposite of that. <P> effectively didn't
*have* a closing tag many years ago; nobody ever did it. Only with the
XHTML stuff is there more of an insistence in opens with matching closes.
(not to be contrary, but..)
14 May
14 May
4:07 p.m.
New subject: HTML coding ( was Re: Lisa C and Lisa FORTRAN)
> > don't need the intro and outro HTML tags
(e.g. HTML and BODY).
> I don't recall any web browser ever actually requiring that in
> order to spit out text.
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Andrew Burton wrote:
So why do we have them?
To confirm to the display software that the tags are to be treated as if
they were out of band, rather than as part of the content.
But that is now the default.
9 May
9 May
11:21 a.m.
There is now a degrading of the term programming to
include entering =
data on things like an on board computer of a car to configuring =
spreadsheets and designing web pages.
I (and every other hardware person I know) would use the term
'programming an EPROM' to mean 'loading the bytes into it', even if what
we are loading is, say, the pattens for a character generator.
However, in the context of 'learning to program' or 'learnign
programming' or whatever, I think it should imply learning to use a
turing-complete (apart from memroy size :-)) language. There are plenty
to choose from. It should also cover the much more inportant questions
of how to choose an algorithm, how to split up a problem into logical
steps, and so on. If you can do that you can probably learn just aobut
any language in an afternoon.
How can BASIC not be taught? Every computer has
it's own version of =
BASIC,
Sorry I have to disagree there. There are MANY computers including =
modern ones which do not support BASIC. If you restrict it to modern =
desktop and laptop machines then you are probably correct but you are =
ignoring many pre 1980 machines and nearly all the embedded computers =
like PIC chips. Or Pascal. I think almost any block structured
language is better for =
beginners than Basic.
There are block-structured versions of BASIC...
I am not sure that the choice of language is that important. You can
write clean, maintainable code in any language. You can write opaque
spaghetti in any languag. And the real skills (mentioned earlier) are
pretty much language-independant.
-tony
5335
days inactive
5341
days old
48 comments
16 participants
participants (16)
-
aliensrcooluk＠yahoo.co.uk -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
caveguy＠sbcglobal.net -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
fmc＠reanimators.org -
IanK＠vulcan.com -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
pat＠computer-refuge.org -
ploopster＠gmail.com -
rdawson16＠hotmail.com -
roger.holmes＠microspot.co.uk -
segin2005＠gmail.com -
spectre＠floodgap.com