From Newsgroup: comp.lang.misc

On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 17:09:49 -0000 (UTC), root wrote:

I call ... junk languages: ... programs written in these are unstable.
Some modification in these can cause a perfectly functional program to
stop working because of some change that was not backward compatible.

I ran into this problem way back in the 70's when I was running Fortran programs on CDC machines. One day my Fortran programs would no longer
compile because CDC had updated their compiler. I had no recourse other
than tracking down every "error" and programming around that. Do that
with a program that ran to 20 boxes of cards.

If Fortran can be a “junk language” by your definition, then so can any language.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.misc

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

If Fortran can be a ???junk language??? by your definition, then so can any language.

It wasn't Fortran that changed, it was the CDC compiler.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.misc

The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except as noted in
the sig.

I follow up to comp.lang.misc because it seems that root's Followup-To
is not suitable.

On 20/11/2024 02:33, root wrote:

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

If Fortran can be a ???junk language??? by your definition, then so can any >> language.

It wasn't Fortran that changed, it was the CDC compiler.

The implication is that it was fortran before and it was fortran after,
yet the two were different in a difficult way.

The problem here is about what kind of expression is the fortran that is
so well-constrained that the programmer may assume his empirical
experiences of it are the only valid experiences of their respective circumstances, and what kind of expression is the fortran that varies
and must vary, or generally what kind of variation is admitted in the
presence or absence of what kind of perceivable qualities. Some
human-relevant perceivable qualities.

That's firstly about legal controls - trademarks owned by standards
bodies or private controllers of specifications would be good - you
mustn't say the compiler does fortran at times that it doesn't. This is
a legal matter because language is about interactions and common meaning inferred from experiences whereby some so-effective controls must be
applied to the population.

The legal aspect is extrinsic, it's not a part of the language EXCEPT in
so far as the language has a name that can be trademarked and it's used
by the interpreters, translators, code receivers, etc.

Only then it's about certain qualities of the language and its past specifications.

Secondly its about cultural controls, which may be used to apply
controls on the perception of the population that persist naturally
among the population (that means memes, even if they must be well
camouflaged so we have subtle responses to such stimuli) but which are experienced pleasantly by the population where the legal controls would
not be so received. That's partly extrinsic and partly intrinsic, the
more intrinsic it is, the better. A specification may use words so that
future specification writers less often make changes that are perceived
poorly or increase the incidence of such changes in the farther future.

Thirdly it's about fundamentally common human-perception within the
language itself, but since the use of law and culture succeed by their
relation to common human-feeling, maybe there are some deeper
philosophies than mine.


--
Tristan Wibberley

The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.misc

On Sat, 18 Oct 2025 04:22:19 +0100, Tristan Wibberley wrote:

The problem here is about what kind of expression is the fortran that is
so well-constrained ...

Standards compliance.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.lang.misc

On 2025-10-18 03:22:19 +0000, Tristan Wibberley said:

The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except as noted in
the sig.

I follow up to comp.lang.misc because it seems that root's Followup-To
is not suitable.

On 20/11/2024 02:33, root wrote:

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

If Fortran can be a ???junk language??? by your definition, then so can any >>> language.

It wasn't Fortran that changed, it was the CDC compiler.

The implication is that it was fortran before and it was fortran after,
yet the two were different in a difficult way.

The problem here is about what kind of expression is the fortran that is
so well-constrained that the programmer may assume his empirical
experiences of it are the only valid experiences of their respective circumstances, and what kind of expression is the fortran that varies
and must vary, or generally what kind of variation is admitted in the presence or absence of what kind of perceivable qualities. Some human-relevant perceivable qualities.

That's firstly about legal controls - trademarks owned by standards
bodies or private controllers of specifications would be good - you
mustn't say the compiler does fortran at times that it doesn't. This is
a legal matter because language is about interactions and common meaning inferred from experiences whereby some so-effective controls must be
applied to the population.

The legal aspect is extrinsic, it's not a part of the language EXCEPT in
so far as the language has a name that can be trademarked and it's used
by the interpreters, translators, code receivers, etc.

That samething can be trademarked does not matter as long a it isn't.
Most language names are not trademarks. When the exact meaning has
legal signifcance it is best to have clear identification of the
meaning in every contract, either a definition or an unambiguos
reference to the defining document.
--
Mikko

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2