Sayings you hate

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

I agree, Cal's explanation of the modern meaning of "application" sounds right.

Back in the olden days "application" usually meant the business environment and purpose of software. So we spoke about "hardware" and "operating systems" and "applications".

NCR or IBM might be the hardware, VRX or MVS/XA might be the operating system, and Banking, for example, was an application. Back in those days it was rare for programmers to get clear instructions about new products or features that they needed to develop, so knowledge of the application was often considered at least as important as knowledge of the programming language or operating system. Because there were invariably a lot of gaps that the programmer needed to fill or clarify.

Other applications in those days might have been insurance or ticketing or warehousing.

[DirtDawg]

"I shouldn't of had ... "

Need I describe my annoyance further.

[Calandale]

It's really

"I shouldn't've had"

the contraction principle.

[DirtDawg]

Over here, I heard "application"  used more often than a program. You had to open your program (operating system) and "launch" your application within "Workgroups."  At least that was the language most commonly use.

Thought there are system programs and application programs, so essentially they're all programs and applications simply aren't system specific. Maybe Odeon can clarify.

An application is a program with a UI component.

Excellent. So what about some of the older Adobe "applications,"  very user friendly, which did not care about the "program" (or computer operating system) under which they were utilized?
Those were applications, right? While a mouse was helpful at times, knowledge of the gazillion keyboard "interface" short cuts was essential at being "efficient,"  right?
Does this mean that once the mouse became popular in use with an operating system "program"  That program is dangerously close to becoming an application?
 

Maybe differences have become so insignificant that the terms are interchangeable? Kind of like a Newspeak thing?

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

"I shouldn't of had ... "

Need I describe my annoyance further.

Well you could of at least described what annoys you about that. I wouldn't of worked it out by myself.

[DirtDawg]

"I shouldn't of had ... "

Need I describe my annoyance further.

Well you could of at least described what annoys you about that. I wouldn't of worked it out by myself.

[Jack]

Over here, I heard "application"  used more often than a program. You had to open your program (operating system) and "launch" your application within "Workgroups."  At least that was the language most commonly use.

Thought there are system programs and application programs, so essentially they're all programs and applications simply aren't system specific. Maybe Odeon can clarify.

An application is a program with a UI component.

Excellent. So what about some of the older Adobe "applications,"  very user friendly, which did not care about the "program" (or computer operating system) under which they were utilized?
Those were applications, right? While a mouse was helpful at times, knowledge of the gazillion keyboard "interface" short cuts was essential at being "efficient,"  right?
Does this mean that once the mouse became popular in use with an operating system "program"  That program is dangerously close to becoming an application?
 

Maybe differences have become so insignificant that the terms are interchangeable? Kind of like a Newspeak thing?

My initial response was also to note peripheral devices are UI components for system programs, and then realized he likely meant the UI is part of the programming within applications. That's why it's a good distinction. Also to your point on system dependence, even if they're not picky, applications are dependent on system programs to functions. That's another good distinction.

[DirtDawg]

I agree, Cal's explanation of the modern meaning of "application" sounds right.

Back in the olden days "application" usually meant the business environment and purpose of software. So we spoke about "hardware" and "operating systems" and "applications".

NCR or IBM might be the hardware, VRX or MVS/XA might be the operating system, and Banking, for example, was an application. Back in those days it was rare for programmers to get clear instructions about new products or features that they needed to develop, so knowledge of the application was often considered at least as important as knowledge of the programming language or operating system. Because there were invariably a lot of gaps that the programmer needed to fill or clarify.

Other applications in those days might have been insurance or ticketing or warehousing.

OK. but do not forget those of us who claim to be artists who have also claimed our use as a legitimate reason to own an expensive computer, even when not many had ever even seen one.
Think where we might be without Industrial Light And Magic, for instance.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

I hate rhyming slang that uses made-up words.

Like "lovely jubbly". Exactly what is clever or useful about making up words that kinda sound like another word just so you've got an unnecessary rhyme?

[Calandale]

Over here, I heard "application"  used more often than a program. You had to open your program (operating system) and "launch" your application within "Workgroups."  At least that was the language most commonly use.

Thought there are system programs and application programs, so essentially they're all programs and applications simply aren't system specific. Maybe Odeon can clarify.

An application is a program with a UI component.

Excellent. So what about some of the older Adobe "applications,"  very user friendly, which did not care about the "program" (or computer operating system) under which they were utilized?
Those were applications, right? While a mouse was helpful at times, knowledge of the gazillion keyboard "interface" short cuts was essential at being "efficient,"  right?
Does this mean that once the mouse became popular in use with an operating system "program"  That program is dangerously close to becoming an application?
 

Maybe differences have become so insignificant that the terms are interchangeable? Kind of like a Newspeak thing?

I don't understand. Keyboard is a user interface too. I didn't say 'graphical user interface'.

An OS contains many programs generally. That's why the word 'system'. Some of those are applications (i.e. bash) some are not (daemons).

[Calandale]

My initial response was also to note peripheral devices are UI components for system programs, and then realized he likely meant the UI is part of the programming within applications. That's why it's a good distinction. Also to your point on system dependence, even if they're not picky, applications are dependent on system programs to functions. That's another good distinction.

You're cutting the lines at the wrong points. A program which includes a UI is an application. It's really that simple.
The UI includes pure output calls as well (like to the screen).

There are plenty of non-application programs which are dependent upon system functions, as well.

NOW, if you start getting into the etymology of API (application programming interface) it is quite clear that this was not
the only definition. Back end functionality can expose APIs, either to applications proper or to other non-user based programs.
As far as I can tell, that definition is essentially synonymous with program.

[DirtDawg]

My initial response was also to note peripheral devices are UI components for system programs, and then realized he likely meant the UI is part of the programming within applications. That's why it's a good distinction. Also to your point on system dependence, even if they're not picky, applications are dependent on system programs to functions. That's another good distinction.

You're cutting the lines at the wrong points. A program which includes a UI is an application. It's really that simple.
The UI includes pure output calls as well (like to the screen).

There are plenty of non-application programs which are dependent upon system functions, as well.

NOW, if you start getting into the etymology of API (application programming interface) it is quite clear that this was not
the only definition. Back end functionality can expose APIs, either to applications proper or to other non-user based programs.
As far as I can tell, that definition is essentially synonymous with program.

I think I understand your distinction, after your continued patience at trying to help those of us who live on "the outside" of developmental efforts.
Obviously many of the original definitions have been contaminated or co-opted by marketing groups.
Why I mentioned the keyboard, something you want to do, simply. How the computer knows what the key strokes mean is nothing the user has to think about.

An application is something you WANT to manipulate and never have to think of kernel stacks. Kind of like we do not want to know what happens when we hit the flush handle, we just want a clean bowl when we return. Right?

[Calandale]

An application is something you WANT to manipulate and never have to think of kernel stacks. Kind of like we do not want to know what happens when we hit the flush handle, we just want a clean bowl when we return. Right?

That may be a better concept. Because we don't want to call a heart-rate monitor to be considered an application.

[DirtDawg]

U fkn cnt m8, u tkn da piss?

w0teva bruv, innit.


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

QFT

[Jack]

My initial response was also to note peripheral devices are UI components for system programs, and then realized he likely meant the UI is part of the programming within applications. That's why it's a good distinction. Also to your point on system dependence, even if they're not picky, applications are dependent on system programs to functions. That's another good distinction.

You're cutting the lines at the wrong points. A program which includes a UI is an application. It's really that simple.
The UI includes pure output calls as well (like to the screen).

There are plenty of non-application programs which are dependent upon system functions, as well.

NOW, if you start getting into the etymology of API (application programming interface) it is quite clear that this was not
the only definition. Back end functionality can expose APIs, either to applications proper or to other non-user based programs.
As far as I can tell, that definition is essentially synonymous with program.

You brought up a good point about heart monitors, and they also don't need an OS, so still thinking system dependent is a good distinction, though a distinction to be combined with UI.