I was surprised not to see Haskell mentioned here. It has a really steep learning curve.

Rumanti wrote:

Butterflies.

Real programmers use butterflies.

I couldn't think of anything more difficult.

That's not a language, that's a method to write machine code, which isn't a language

Hardmath123 wrote:

I was surprised not to see Haskell mentioned here. It has a really steep learning curve.

How easy is it to start off?

Jonathan50 wrote:

Rumanti wrote:

Butterflies.

Real programmers use butterflies.

I couldn't think of anything more difficult.

That's not a language, that's a method to write machine code, which isn't a language

Machine code isn't a language? Since when?

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

Jonathan50 wrote:

Rumanti wrote:

Butterflies.

Real programmers use butterflies.

I couldn't think of anything more difficult.

That's not a language, that's a method to write machine code, which isn't a language

Machine code isn't a language? Since when?

It isn't a language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_code
yes, it is.

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

Jonathan50 wrote:

Rumanti wrote:

Butterflies.

Real programmers use butterflies.

I couldn't think of anything more difficult.

That's not a language, that's a method to write machine code, which isn't a language

Machine code isn't a language? Since when?

Machine code is a code; a certain sequence of bits codes for a certain instruction. A language has different properties.

Znapi wrote:

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

Jonathan50 wrote:

Rumanti wrote:

Butterflies.

Real programmers use butterflies.

I couldn't think of anything more difficult.

That's not a language, that's a method to write machine code, which isn't a language

Machine code isn't a language? Since when?

Machine code is a code; a certain sequence of bits codes for a certain instruction. A language has different properties.

I beg to differ.

The consensus on codegolf.SE states

A purported programming language should be accepted as such if and only if it is capable of addition of natural numbers and primality testing of natural numbers.

More precise description

The language must:

1. Support a representation of natural numbers and of tuples. (We're talking about languages rather than implementations, so we will leave to one side the issue of type widths).
   
2. Be able either to transform inputs into outputs (transformational model) or to distinguish an “accepted” input from a “rejected” input (decision model).
   
3. Be able to take two natural numbers and add them. In the transformational model, this means transforming an input tuple of two numbers into an output which correctly represents their sum. In the decision model this means deciding whether an input contains the representation of a tuple of three natural numbers such that the third is the sum of the first two.
   
4. Be able to take a natural number and say whether or not it is a prime. In the transformational model this means transforming a natural number into the representation of 0 or 1 according to whether it is a composite or a prime number. In the decision model it means accepting precisely those inputs which represent a prime.
   

Machine code (obviously) does all of these things.

Wikipedia states:

Numerical machine code (i.e., not assembly code) may be regarded as the lowest-level representation of a compiled or assembled computer program or as a primitive and hardware-dependent programming language.

It qualifies for StackExchange to enter a golf. That does not necessarily mean it is a language.

Jonathan50 wrote:

It qualifies for StackExchange to enter a golf. That does not necessarily mean it is a language.

So… golf is not a language?
</captain-obvious>

I don't understand your point, sorry.

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

Jonathan50 wrote:

It qualifies for StackExchange to enter a golf. That does not necessarily mean it is a language.

So… golf is not a language?
</captain-obvious>

What do you mean by ‘golf’?

Jonathan50 wrote:

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

Jonathan50 wrote:

It qualifies for StackExchange to enter a golf. That does not necessarily mean it is a language.

So… golf is not a language?
</captain-obvious>

What do you mean by ‘golf’?

See my edited post

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

Jonathan50 wrote:

It qualifies for StackExchange to enter a golf. That does not necessarily mean it is a language.

So… golf is not a language?
</captain-obvious>

I don't understand your point, sorry.

Erm… what?
I mean code golf

Jonathan50 wrote:

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

Jonathan50 wrote:

It qualifies for StackExchange to enter a golf. That does not necessarily mean it is a language.

So… golf is not a language?
</captain-obvious>

I don't understand your point, sorry.

Erm… what?
I mean code golf

I actually don't understand what you intend to mean by what you said. I'm not even trying to be strict with grammar.
Do you mean to say codegolf.SE's rules are invalid? (If so, you still can't argue with Wikipedia)

How I interpret what you said:
“It qualifies for StackExchange to enter a golf.”
=> "StackExchange [is qualified] to enter a golf [competition]“
”That does not necessarily mean it is a language.“
=> ”That does not necessarily mean [golf] is a language.“ or ”That does not necessarily mean [StackExchange] is a language."

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

Jonathan50 wrote:

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

Jonathan50 wrote:

It qualifies for StackExchange to enter a golf. That does not necessarily mean it is a language.

So… golf is not a language?
</captain-obvious>

I don't understand your point, sorry.

Erm… what?
I mean code golf

I actually don't understand what you intend to mean by what you said. I'm not even trying to be strict with grammar.
Do you mean to say codegolf.SE's rules are invalid? (If so, you still can't argue with Wikipedia)

How I interpret what you said:
“It qualifies for StackExchange to enter a golf.”
=> "StackExchange [is qualified] to enter a golf [competition]“
”That does not necessarily mean it is a language.“
=> ”That does not necessarily mean [golf] is a language.“ or ”That does not necessarily mean [StackExchange] is a language."

xD lol
That is definitely not what I mean.
I mean although machine code qualifies to enter a StackExchange codegolf like a normal language, that does not necessarily mean machine code is a programming language.

Jonathan50 wrote:

Although machine code qualifies to enter a StackExchange codegolf like a normal language, that does not necessarily mean machine code is a programming language.

Why?

Another wikipedia quote

A programming language is a formal

Yep, machine code is formally defined

constructed language

It's a stretch, but machine code can be a constructed language (just as ciphers might be constructed languages)

designed to communicate instructions to a machine, particularly a computer.

Check

Programming languages can be used to create programs to control the behavior of a machine or to express algorithms.

Check

The earliest programming languages preceded the invention of the digital computer and were used to direct the behavior of machines such as Jacquard looms and player pianos.

If a music roll pattern for a player piano is a programming language, why isn't machine code also a programming language?

Machine code doesn't have any grammer or syntax.

Jonathan50 wrote:

Machine code doesn't have any grammer or syntax.

The statements are far shorter and simpler than in higher-level languages but I don't see why that in itself isn't a syntax

p.s. someone should write a windowing/gaming library for malbolge

Jonathan50 wrote:

Machine code doesn't have any grammar or syntax.

of course it does, how else will a computer function? In fact, the closer you get to machine language, the stricter the grammar and syntax rules get. Think about the abnormalities of JavaScript compared to the formal syntax of Assembly.

I think you mean it doesn't have readable syntax (to a human). To a computer it is extremely well defined, but to us it's just a bunch of 1's and 0's.

Composing music is a lot like programming. You're turning a concept into concrete instructions for a desired output. While the end result might not be readable like words, it can still be interpreted by a user or machine. Computers read machine code just like musicians read sheet music; the lesson learned here is that a programming language is not restricted to understandable words like in a book, it can be anything that is used to achieve something.

Though machine code is still a programming language (the lowest there is), not many programmers are eager to use it because, well, it's difficult to understand without knowledge of a computer's inner workings. I reckon the creators of computers are the only ones who know what the instruction codes are in the machine language because they had to know for the sake of building assemblers.

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

Znapi wrote:

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

Machine code isn't a language? Since when?

Machine code is a code; a certain sequence of bits codes for a certain instruction. A language has different properties.

I beg to differ.
-snip codegolf.SE quote-
Wikipedia states:

Numerical machine code (i.e., not assembly code) may be regarded as the lowest-level representation of a compiled or assembled computer program or as a primitive and hardware-dependent programming language.

Not sure how the codegolf.SE reference helped. According to it, I'm a programming language.

MegaApuTurkUltra wrote:

constructed language

It's a stretch, but machine code can be a constructed language (just as ciphers might be constructed languages)

I guess how I differentiate machine code is different from whether or not it is a constructed language, but rather how it is constructed. The border gets fuzzy there though, and I just admitted that it is a constructed language, so you win I guess .

I also realized that machine code is how you communicate with the machine, so that also pushed me more towards it being a language.