[Default] On 25 Sep 2019 11:13:20 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main sme...@gmu.edu (Seymour J Metz) wrote:
>The nomenclature that a parser uses for a parse tree has nothing to do with >the nature of the language that it parses. The format of an HTML parse tree >constructed by, e.g., a Perl program, is not compatible with JavaScript. > >CSS is not JavaScript, or even related to it. The objects and attributes of >HTML have nothing to do with the things called objects and attributes in an OO >language. CSS is not even Turing complete, much less an OO language or a >scripting language. > >JavaScript was created as a Scripting language for web sites; not as an >extension of HTML. In fact, "extension of HTML" makes no sense on the server >side. > >Copy books cam in with Jovial, well before 1970. Assemblers had COPY >instructions in the 1960s. PL/I had the %INCLUDE statement in the 1960s. By >1970 it was old hat. COBOL D on DOS/360 had copybooks in 1966 or earlier. Clark Morris > >IBM never referred to copy books as macro instructions because they were >different features of the same language; e.g., PL/I had %INCLUDE and also >%PROC, Assembler (F) had COPY and also MACRO. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
