Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #38447 > unrolled thread

Re: Is Python programming language?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Is Python programming language? Stephane Wirtel <stephane@wirtel.be> - 2013-02-08 14:15 +0100
    Re: Is Python programming language? Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-08 17:59 +0000
      Re: Is Python programming language? Tim Roberts <timr@probo.com> - 2013-02-09 15:26 -0800
        Re: Is Python programming language? Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2013-02-09 16:53 -0700
        Re: Is Python programming language? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-02-09 21:40 -0500
        Re: Is Python programming language? Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-02-09 21:47 -0500
        Re: Is Python programming language? Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2013-02-09 19:55 -0700
        Re: Is Python programming language? Dan Stromberg <drsalists@gmail.com> - 2013-02-11 15:46 -0800

#38447 — Re: Is Python programming language?

* gmspro <gmspro@yahoo.com> [2013-02-08 05:03:51 -0800]:

> Hello all,
> 
> One said, Python is not programming language, rather scripting language, is that true?
> 
> Thanks.
> 

> -- 
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

What's the difference ?

http://openerp.com OpenERP is written with Python and this is an ERP,
Youtube is written with Python and used by Google.


-- 
Stéphane Wirtel - http://wirtel.be - @matrixise

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#38472

On 2013-02-08, Stephane Wirtel <stephane@wirtel.be> wrote:
> * gmspro <gmspro@yahoo.com> [2013-02-08 05:03:51 -0800]:
>
>> Hello all,
>> 
>> One said, Python is not programming language, rather scripting language, is that true?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>
>> -- 
>> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
> What's the difference ?

IMO, a "scripting language" is used to automate tasks that would
otherwise be done by a human sitting at a keyboard typing commands.
[Perhaps that definition should be extended to include tasks that
would otherwise by done by a human sitting and clicking on a GUI.]


> http://openerp.com OpenERP is written with Python and this is an ERP,
> Youtube is written with Python and used by Google.

IMO, neither one of those is replacing a person typing commands or
clicking buttons, so neither of those are "scripting" applications.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! I want EARS!  I want
                                  at               two ROUND BLACK EARS
                              gmail.com            to make me feel warm
                                                   'n secure!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38542

Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>IMO, a "scripting language" is used to automate tasks that would
>otherwise be done by a human sitting at a keyboard typing commands.
>[Perhaps that definition should be extended to include tasks that
>would otherwise by done by a human sitting and clicking on a GUI.]

I think that definition is a little too neat and clean.  

Most people would call bash a "scripting language", but it is also clearly
a programming language.  It has syntax, variables and expressions.  I
suspect it is Turing-complete, although I haven't seen a proof of that.

I would assert that scripting languages are a proper subset of programming
languages, not a separate category.
-- 
Tim Roberts, timr@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38543

On 02/09/2013 04:26 PM, Tim Roberts wrote:
> Most people would call bash a "scripting language", but it is also clearly
> a programming language.  It has syntax, variables and expressions.  I
> suspect it is Turing-complete, although I haven't seen a proof of that.
> 
> I would assert that scripting languages are a proper subset of programming
> languages, not a separate category.

I'm pretty sure Bash is turing complete.  I know it's been shown that
sed is turing complete, and awk probably is too!  If I recall, the way
to show a language is turing complete is to implement a turing machine
in it.  I'm pretty sure bash could handle that, though maybe with help
from a standard set of unix tools one always finds used in conjunction
with the shell.  Here's one implementation:

https://github.com/thulsadum/bash-turing-machine/blob/master/turing.sh

I would say that "scripting language" isn't a definition of a type of
language, but rather a description of how a language is put to use in a
particular case.  For example, when embedded in a game, lua is used as a
scripting language to automate and extend the game in certain ways, by
exposing game objects to the lua engine and allowing interpreted lua
code to manipulate (script) them.  Javascript is the same thing in other
programs.  But whether you call javascript a scripting language in
firefox, or something much more (as it's actualy required for firefox to
function at all), is a matter of personal preference really.

I've seen python embedded in apps to act as a scripting language before.
 I've also seen full-blown apps written in python.

So yes, the distinction, as made by the original poster, isn't really
necessary.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38544

On 2/9/2013 6:53 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 02/09/2013 04:26 PM, Tim Roberts wrote:
>> Most people would call bash a "scripting language", but it is also clearly
>> a programming language.  It has syntax, variables and expressions.  I
>> suspect it is Turing-complete, although I haven't seen a proof of that.
>>
>> I would assert that scripting languages are a proper subset of programming
>> languages, not a separate category.
>
> I'm pretty sure Bash is turing complete.  I know it's been shown that
> sed is turing complete, and awk probably is too!  If I recall, the way
> to show a language is turing complete is to implement a turing machine

If the language has arrays, conditional execution, and explicit (while) 
loops or recursion, you can be pretty sure it is Turing complete. I 
presume this covers awk and bash. Something like the game of Life, where 
the looping in implicit in the operation, is much harder to show Turing 
complete. I suspect sed is non-trivial also.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38545

On 2/9/2013 6:26 PM, Tim Roberts wrote:
> Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> IMO, a "scripting language" is used to automate tasks that would
>> otherwise be done by a human sitting at a keyboard typing commands.
>> [Perhaps that definition should be extended to include tasks that
>> would otherwise by done by a human sitting and clicking on a GUI.]
>
> I think that definition is a little too neat and clean.
>
> Most people would call bash a "scripting language", but it is also clearly
> a programming language.  It has syntax, variables and expressions.  I
> suspect it is Turing-complete, although I haven't seen a proof of that.
>
> I would assert that scripting languages are a proper subset of programming
> languages, not a separate category.

To me, 'scripting languages' include some non-Turing-complete languages 
and I would not call those 'programming languages'.


-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38546

On 02/09/2013 07:40 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> If the language has arrays, conditional execution, and explicit (while) 
> loops or recursion, you can be pretty sure it is Turing complete. I 
> presume this covers awk and bash. Something like the game of Life, where 
> the looping in implicit in the operation, is much harder to show Turing 
> complete. I suspect sed is non-trivial also.

All you have to do to show a language is turing complete is to implement
a turing machine in it.  Here's one in sed that I found:
http://www.catonmat.net/blog/proof-that-sed-is-turing-complete/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38709

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Sent from my android phone.
On Feb 9, 2013 6:41 PM, "Terry Reedy" <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
>
> On 2/9/2013 6:53 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
>>
>> On 02/09/2013 04:26 PM, Tim Roberts wrote:
>>>
>>> Most people would call bash a "scripting language", but it is also
clearly
>>> a programming language.  It has syntax, variables and expressions.  I
>>> suspect it is Turing-complete, although I haven't seen a proof of that.
>>>
>>> I would assert that scripting languages are a proper subset of
programming
>>> languages, not a separate category.
>>
>>
>> I'm pretty sure Bash is turing complete.  I know it's been shown that
>> sed is turing complete, and awk probably is too!  If I recall, the way
>> to show a language is turing complete is to implement a turing machine
>
>
> If the language has arrays, conditional execution, and explicit (while)
loops or recursion, you can be pretty sure it is Turing complete. I presume
this covers awk and bash. Something like the game of Life, where the
looping in implicit in the operation, is much harder to show Turing
complete. I suspect sed is non-trivial also.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness

For proving something Turing-complete, you only need to prove equivalence
to some other Turing-complete language.

The simplest test involves three things:
1. Sequential flow
2. An if, while or recursive function/method call
3. An arbitrary number of variables - arrays are optional

Strictly speaking, no language on a real computer is fully Turing-complete,
because real computers don't have an infinitely large memory, while TM's do.

But it's common to handwaive past that part of the definition.

> Terry Jan Reedy
>
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web