

When does automation become coding? (My response to Atwood) - dools
http://www.workingsoftware.com.au/page/When_does_automation_become_coding

======
mrpsbrk
The whole point of the "Turing Machine" is that code is data is code, so... In
effect, "automation" is code, just bad code, brainless code in a way, as the
other poster says way too easy.

The guy in blitzlang (something) does programs as XML that only convert to
text as a "view", so you can see the same "code" as a variety of syntaxes just
as you can, say, change icon size in a file manager.

The very word is tricky: Code. Like in cypher? Like in codex (book)? Like in
instruction code?

Once you take algorithm out of the hardware realm, then how can we really say
which code is script and which is real? Every single thing that ends up in
github has been algorithmically transformed. Isn't a config file a Domain
Specific Language? Why not? And could we not say an endless stream of mouse-
pointer coordinates together with clicks is just as code: Non-executable data
that has somehow to be "compiled"?

Just random musings...

------
throwaway63-90
The thing is, people consider scripting to be "coding".

Many people who write scripts in Perl, Python, Ruby, etc. call themselves
coders.

But if they were tasked with writing in assembly or C they could not do it.

And how do we know Atwood himself can even do it.

Show us Atwood's C programming and let's have a look.

It's probably full of security holes.

~~~
IsaacSchlueter
The thing is, people consider coding to be "programming".

Many people who write code in C, Ada, Pascal, etc. call themselves
programmers.

But if they were tasked with writing machine instructions or even assembly
they could not do it.

And how do we know throwaway63-90 himself can even do it.

Show us throwaway63-90's machine code and let's have a look.

It's probably full of security holes.

