i'd like to learn a programing language!

[bgreene2001]

Whick all pale in comparison to UltraEdit

Great for working on a few classes simultaneously.  Highly customiseable.

[Starfyre]

Well, if you plan to work with PHP or HTML and want something that is free and nice, use:
http://tswebeditor.net.tc/

I like it, 've been using it for a lot of things and it works quite well, especially for PHP!

[Josh mc]

din't he say that he didn't want to make a site?

and I have just started on VB, with my dodgy version of VS and a book borrowed of my dad. It seems quite easy, but nothing like C++.

[Octavious]

As a clarification, a markup language is a programming language, as scripting is a form of programming. Also, '==' and '!=' are comparitives not statements of fact; my response to "HTML != programming" is therefore 'false', but to "HTML == Scripting" is 'true'. A markup language is a language which is interprated by a computer, and is thus programming. No worries, I am through being an arse, for the time being.

My two cents on specific languages is that for learning the best languages are Pascal and Java, in that order; that is, learn Pascal, then learn Java. They are undoubtubly the best structured and easiest to use of the languages I've tried. They also tend to teach good programming style and habits. Pascal, as far as procedural programming goes, is very nice. Java is one of the few true object oriented languages and will teach you different ways of thinking about programming, unlike C++, which is a slightly modified procedural language. But just for fun, go with python (I just got into it, and it is good fun).
http://www.python.org/

[Stewsburntmonkey]

I am just going to point out that HTML is merely a data format.  As it contains no logic it is not a programming language.  It does exist in the digital realm and does alter computer behavior, but so does the keyboard.  The general rule for a "programming language" is Turing completeness.  HTML is not Turing Complete.  :)

[Octavious]

Any language (Pascal, Java, HTML, English, Chinese, etc.) is merely a data format. The idea of a language is a common data format to enable people or machines to exchange data in a meaningful interpritable manner. No language (save binary) is turing complete; a compiler translates a language into a turing interpritable state (binary), just as your web browser (for example) does for HTML. We can argue the definitions of words forever; the point is that if you want to learn to write in a common language which your computer will be able to understand, HTML is a perfectly valid choice, which, as far as I am concerned, makes it a programming language, as it is a language which is used to program (set the behaviour of) a computer.

[Jackmn]

Actually, aside from the limitation of finite memory, programming languages ARE turing complete.

It doesn't matter that they need to be converted to an intermediate form to be executed.

Hells, conway's game of life is considered turing complete, and that certainly needs some form of interpretation.

[bgreene2001]

HTML is not scripting, it is simply a markup language.  There is no logic or control stucture, it's no more programming than a word document.  All it has is formatting basically.  You can embed scripting languages in HTML, but HTML itself is not programming.

Also, binary itself is not turing-complete.  Neither is decimal, octal or hex.  Binary is a number system, machine code / byte code (like java) is what you are talking about I think.  And if something can be directly translated into another language, and after it has been translated, is turing complete, then the first language must also be turing complete.  It doesn't matter if it machine-readable or not

I'll have time to have a look at doing that java tutorial in a few hours, after my Engineering Management lecture (I know, it's not normal for engineers to turn up to lectures, but I've missed enough of EMT as it is )

[EliteAgent]

The Link for the the java compiler is www.java.sun.com

[bgreene2001]

Semi-compiler and interpreter, I think you'll find
I thought that link had already been posted, but we may have missed it

I'll get writing in just over an hour, after this lecture

[Paperback Writer]

But if turing complete only means it can be interpreted into a turing machine sequence, then every sequence of data in any format be turing complete. Machine code in our modern computers is binary; the fact that it is just a number format makes it no less the final product needed to be machine interpretable. Any input into a computer is programming; it is only a matter of the input's meaning to you. (See earlier post for explination.)

[Octavious]

Quote: from Paperback Writer on 3:02 am on Aug. 20, 2003[br]But if turing complete only means it can be interpreted into a turing machine sequence, then every sequence of data in any format be turing complete. Machine code in our modern computers is binary; the fact that it is just a number format makes it no less the final product needed to be machine interpretable. Any input into a computer is programming; it is only a matter of the input's meaning to you. (See earlier post for explination.)

That was me; I hate cookies

[bgreene2001]

Quote: from Paperback Writer on 1:02 pm on Aug. 20, 2003[br]But if turing complete only means it can be interpreted into a turing machine sequence, then every sequence of data in any format be turing complete. Machine code in our modern computers is binary; the fact that it is just a number format makes it no less the final product needed to be machine interpretable. Any input into a computer is programming; it is only a matter of the input's meaning to you. (See earlier post for explination.)

You seem to have misunderstood me.  What I'm saying is that if you can translate something into another form, and in that form it is turing-complete, then the first form is also turing complete.  That isn't the definition of a turing-complete language.  ie: B->A doesn't mean A->B.  And binary, by definition, is just numbers.  It is not a language, but can be used to represent diferend languages.  By what some people here seem to think, me speaking English is programming.  Hell, this post is programming

A programming language is generally a strictly defined set of instructions, control structures, variables, etc.  It can be more than that, and sometimes it might not be very well defined (I've seen compilers that will try and make a program out of anything.  Like it would take the input '=', and make some complex 'if' condition out of that, and then compile it.  That's off on a bit of a tangent though )

1)  A programming language can be used to make programs
2)  A scripting language can be used to make scripts (which must be interpreted by a program.  See point 1)
3)  A markup language is used to 'mark up' text, to add formatting.  This must also be interpreted by a program.
4)  Anything not in either of the above, is in neither of the above  Whether it is a spoken or written language, number system, or random characters bashed out by my cousin.

Edit:
'Any input into a computer is programming; it is only a matter of the input's meaning to you.'
Does that mean that me typing on the keyboard (say, an essay or report) programming?  What about moving the mouse?  Playing a game with a joystick/gamepad?  You seem to have your definitions mixed up.  Input is merely electrical pulses (logic high/1, logic low/0) that is 'input' into a computer.  Output is any way that the computer communicates with you (ie a monitor, sound, printer).  None of this is programming.

(Edited by bgreene2001 at 1:24 pm on Aug. 20, 2003)

[Octavious]

You seem to have misunderstood what I said. And that post had no bearing on anything I said. Also programming is, or was when I learned it, defined as controling (in any way) the behaviour of a machine. But these are all simply disputes over the English language, which I would argue is a high level programming language. (Note: You've been programmed to think one thing about programming; I another; both of us have been programmed in English.) One day perhaps English will be interprated down to the binary machine codes of our computers allowing them (just as us) to argue this very same topic.

Where did 'A->B doesn't mean B->A' come from? There was no arguement about sequence.
I said binary was a number format (or more acuratly a character set) just like decimal. But unlike decimal, most modern machines only understand languages in which words are writen in binary. Thus anything writen to a computer must be translated into whatever machine specific language it happens to use writen in binary, just as anything writen to me must be translated into English in the Roman alphabet.
"Does that mean that me typing on the keyboard (say, an essay or report) programming?  What about moving the mouse?  Playing a game with a joystick/gamepad?  You seem to have your definitions mixed up.  Input is merely electrical pulses (logic high/1, logic low/0) that is 'input' into a computer.  Output is any way that the computer communicates with you (ie a monitor, sound, printer).  None of this is programming. "
All of this (input to the computer anyway) is programming it (as far as I'm concerned anyway) as it controls the behaviour of your computer. And perhaps my definitions are mixed up, but, as with any group and subsequent language, that will be for society to judge. My definitions safice for me and have for everyone I've needed to talk with (in this case a signifigant minority).

I however, am a lunitic and am not to be emulated; do not listen to me unless it is for the sake of arguement.

[bgreene2001]

Hehe, I love a good, pointless aregument (And I hope that's the spirit it's taken in, some (maybe slightly eccentric) fun)

Your definition of programming, "controlling the processor", is essentially correct.  I think your interpretation is different from the way it was intended though.  Programming is writing instructions that either the cpu can understand, of that can be translated into a form that the cpu can understand.  The key point is hte instructions.  All other input is interpreted by the computer, and processed by other programs.  It's not actually creating instructions for the cpu, but just executing other instructions that have been programmed before.

For a->b etc, I meant that just because I said that a language is a turing complete language if it can be translated into another language and be turing complete, that doesn't mean that a turing complete language can or must be able to be translated into another.  But I think I may have misread your point.  Turing complete doesn't mean it can be translated into a turing machine sequence, it has to do with the actual functionality of the language.  Also it can be applied to machine code/binary:
machine code C (is a subset of) binary doesn't mean that binary C machine code.  (Anyone know the character code for 'subset of'? )

Your point about the meaning of a word being it's usage in society has some merit, but in general there is still a correct usage of most words.  That applies mostly to slang, such as 'hacking/cracking'.  If you look it up in a dictionary, 'programming' has a fairly specific definition, and so has a correct usage.  Incorrect usage by the general public does not make that usage 'right'.  For example I know a lot of people that call their case/box etc their 'hard drive'.  Of course they are not entirely computer literate, but we don't adopt their meanings for words, as *we* all know the ocrrect usage.

Damn, I love a good argument