<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.4" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Programming paradigms and programming languages</title>
	<link>http://www.korakora.org/wordpress/2007/03/11/programming-paradigms-and-programming-languages/</link>
	<description>Fats Lasay</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 13:16:03 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Trevor</title>
		<link>http://www.korakora.org/wordpress/2007/03/11/programming-paradigms-and-programming-languages/#comment-6378</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:31:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.korakora.org/wordpress/2007/03/11/programming-paradigms-and-programming-languages/#comment-6378</guid>
					<description>Actually, I suspect that there are two (main?) types of "programming paradigms": One type which is embedded in the language itself -providing the basic charaterisics of that language (i.e. "imperative" or "declarative" language types, string based or object based, etc) -and secondly, a more "subjective" type of paradigm which is rooted in the way the individual programmer actually implements the language on a practical and personal level (perhaps producing a personal "style" or "technique").

In "So What is Media Art?" &lt;http ://www.dma.nl/batten/what.htm&gt; there is a more detailed discussion of related (isomorphic) concepts -in the context of "media". It is claimed that each medium has a similar kind of double nature: One which is "hard wired" by the nature of the medium itself and the other one "softwired" by the artist in their personal preferential use of the medium. Presumably.such a correlation between "medium" and "language" is to be expected -IF one accepts the paradigm that "medium" is a specific, concrete, manifestation of the abstract concept of "language.

Indeed, there is probably much fascinating work to be done in studying the relationships (and possible interactions) between the different paradigms (on various levels): As Edward suggested earlier, in order to be implemented on a computer -each language requires a "translator" or "implementor" (iether a compiler, that translate the programme into machine code that can later be run on the computer in question -or an "interpreter" that translates in real-time so the the programme can be run in interactive mode).

This makes the issue of "paradigm" somewhat complicated -because presumably, a single computer can be used to implement different languages which are implemented on the basis of different paradigms (on various levels). If two different users run programmes written in two different languages (say java and lisp) on the same machine -then presumably both languages will have been translated into the (same) machine language that underlies the nature of the machine involved (i.e, Intel processor, Motorola, PowerPC, etc.)..... Similarly, the interpreters also need to be written in the same machine language as that used by the machine -in order to function.

Perhaps even more interesting is the conceptual puzzel that is created when one decides to use one language to write the compiler/interpreter of another..... I believe there is a Lisp interpreter available which is written in java -and I suspect that a java complier written in lisp would not be impossible......

So, it seems that a situation can arise where Java defines the nature of Lisp and Lisp defines the nature of java..... In computer science -this is related to "bootstrapping" -which is a standard procedure where more complex systems are built using simple, more basic, ones..... Interestingly, in Anglo-Saxon languages "a "self-made man" is concidered to have "pulled himself up by his own bootstraps". However in the Germanic (literary) tradition Baron Munchausen is a figure of ridicule -because he claimed to have pulled himself out of quicksand in a similar fashion.&lt;/http&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, I suspect that there are two (main?) types of &#8220;programming paradigms&#8221;: One type which is embedded in the language itself -providing the basic charaterisics of that language (i.e. &#8220;imperative&#8221; or &#8220;declarative&#8221; language types, string based or object based, etc) -and secondly, a more &#8220;subjective&#8221; type of paradigm which is rooted in the way the individual programmer actually implements the language on a practical and personal level (perhaps producing a personal &#8220;style&#8221; or &#8220;technique&#8221;).</p>
<p>In &#8220;So What is Media Art?&#8221; <http ://www.dma.nl/batten/what.htm> there is a more detailed discussion of related (isomorphic) concepts -in the context of &#8220;media&#8221;. It is claimed that each medium has a similar kind of double nature: One which is &#8220;hard wired&#8221; by the nature of the medium itself and the other one &#8220;softwired&#8221; by the artist in their personal preferential use of the medium. Presumably.such a correlation between &#8220;medium&#8221; and &#8220;language&#8221; is to be expected -IF one accepts the paradigm that &#8220;medium&#8221; is a specific, concrete, manifestation of the abstract concept of &#8220;language.</p>
<p>Indeed, there is probably much fascinating work to be done in studying the relationships (and possible interactions) between the different paradigms (on various levels): As Edward suggested earlier, in order to be implemented on a computer -each language requires a &#8220;translator&#8221; or &#8220;implementor&#8221; (iether a compiler, that translate the programme into machine code that can later be run on the computer in question -or an &#8220;interpreter&#8221; that translates in real-time so the the programme can be run in interactive mode).</p>
<p>This makes the issue of &#8220;paradigm&#8221; somewhat complicated -because presumably, a single computer can be used to implement different languages which are implemented on the basis of different paradigms (on various levels). If two different users run programmes written in two different languages (say java and lisp) on the same machine -then presumably both languages will have been translated into the (same) machine language that underlies the nature of the machine involved (i.e, Intel processor, Motorola, PowerPC, etc.)&#8230;.. Similarly, the interpreters also need to be written in the same machine language as that used by the machine -in order to function.</p>
<p>Perhaps even more interesting is the conceptual puzzel that is created when one decides to use one language to write the compiler/interpreter of another&#8230;.. I believe there is a Lisp interpreter available which is written in java -and I suspect that a java complier written in lisp would not be impossible&#8230;&#8230;</p>
<p>So, it seems that a situation can arise where Java defines the nature of Lisp and Lisp defines the nature of java&#8230;.. In computer science -this is related to &#8220;bootstrapping&#8221; -which is a standard procedure where more complex systems are built using simple, more basic, ones&#8230;.. Interestingly, in Anglo-Saxon languages &#8220;a &#8220;self-made man&#8221; is concidered to have &#8220;pulled himself up by his own bootstraps&#8221;. However in the Germanic (literary) tradition Baron Munchausen is a figure of ridicule -because he claimed to have pulled himself out of quicksand in a similar fashion.</http>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
