From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!gatech!mcnc!aurs01!throop Thu Jan 16 17:20:06 EST 1992
Article 2680 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!gatech!mcnc!aurs01!throop
>From: throop@aurs01.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: instantiation of programs
Message-ID: <60274@aurs01.UUCP>
Date: 13 Jan 92 22:01:07 GMT
References: <5815@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1991Dec12.193222.27298@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <5909@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Jan10.005426.24694@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <5949@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: news@aurs01.UUCP
Lines: 15

> From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
> I don't see much problem with saying a computer instantiates
> a program, but let that go.

But-but-but...... computers *don't* instantiate programs.  They
instantiate processes.  Programs are instantiated as values
(concretely, text or binary values).  Nor does a process instantiate a
program: processes execute programs.  (I'd say "interpret", but I might
be accused of trying to sneak intentionality in through the back
door...  and even further, I wouldn't say "implement" either.)

On the other hand, Jeff was probably using "program" as a synonym for
"process" above.  This is, of course, rather too imprecise for my taste.

Wayne Throop       ...!mcnc!aurgate!throop


