Computation is a general, abstract and incredibly useful idea disconnected from any particular model of computation (programming language).
Different languages are just different models of computation and have different (desirable, or undesirable) semantic properties independent from their (trivial) syntactic properties.
It's this sort of angry dogmatism which prevents people from talking about programming language design.
Not for a second do they pause to think their own understanding may be limited.
> It's this sort of angry dogmatism which prevents people from talking about programming language design.
The dogmatism demonstrated today was in your comments, ukj. Your inability to understand that your non-standard use of terms makes it impossible for others to communicate with you in any effective way made this a remarkable farce of a conversation or debate.
If there was a "standard use" languages wouldn't evolve and we wouldn't have so many of them. 8 billion people on Earth would be speaking The Standard Language!
Perhaps the thing you don't understand (over and above how to communicate) is this comic?
There is no such thing as a "standard" model of computation, and therefore no such thing as "standard definition" or use of computation.
There is only the model you (and your tribe) believe is "standard" implicitly. Do you actually understand that?
I kinda thought navigating the inherent ambiguity of all language (programming or natural) is a fundamental skill for software engineers.
Communication is indeed impossible when you think you possess the "right" meaning of words.
Oh... by the way, somebody capable of understanding/listening has just informed me that what I am actually talking about is closer to multiple dispatch than dynamic dispatch.
Multiple dispatch is, in fact, more dynamic than "dynamic dispatch". Hilarity ensues.
Computation is a general, abstract and incredibly useful idea disconnected from any particular model of computation (programming language).
Different languages are just different models of computation and have different (desirable, or undesirable) semantic properties independent from their (trivial) syntactic properties.
It's this sort of angry dogmatism which prevents people from talking about programming language design.
Not for a second do they pause to think their own understanding may be limited.