STRAWSON III: Computers, dead programming languages, and BASIC


Author's name (parents' draft): Terence Rajivan Edward (now Doctor)
Dialogue on names (fictional): "Now why do you want a name?" So that my works can be identified - that is one reason. "You need a number really."
Author's name (my first draft): 0161__Rajivan
Abstract. What is a computer? I define a computer as a machine which follows an arbitrary sequence of instructions: the nature of the machine is such that one does not have to give it these instructions, if one instructs it; but that might include some washing machines. What is a dead programming language: a language which is only of interest for scholarly or nostalgic reasons. Is BASIC a dead coding language?  I don’t know, but I give some reasons to think not: by learning it you can converse with other parents about coding, if you are one; and the computer industry might well have a way of supporting families who supported it during its 1980s expansion; if you missed out, you have to learn BASIC. This paper is written as an imitation of P.F. Strawson.
Draft version: version 1 (10th October 2025, last two references added 4th October 2026)
PDF available at: https://philpapers.org/rec/EDWSIC-3

Our system of concepts, our conceptual scheme, has an unchanging core, featuring such general concepts as that of an event and of a material object and of a minded being. As philosophers, we are disposed to attend to these at the expense of attending to more changeable parts of this system. New concepts are added, sometimes old ones are removed as no longer useful or even as incoherent, having appeared to admit of coherent application. A concept without which we cannot manage in our contemporary circumstances is that of a computer.

What is a computer? We instruct people sometimes, such as someone who wants to know how to get to the central library of a particular city. Walk down this road and stop when you arrive at a large pale circular building: that is the central library.  In the mid 20th century I assume, machines were developed to which one could provide instructions as well, and I wish to propose this definition of a computer: a machine which can follow an arbitrary sequence of instructions. The definition has different components in need of further clarification, although as with all definitions, some components must be left unclarified. The instructions are arbitrary in that the nature of the machine is not such that, if one gives it any instructions at all, one must give it a certain instruction: for example print "Hello." It is not, in common parlance, what is called a one trick pony. Also one must be able to give a sequence of instructions instead of being restricted to a single instruction. Finally, the relationship between the instructions is arbitrary. The basic idea of arbitrariness is: if you give the machine a certain instruction, A, it is not the case that you must then give a certain other instruction, instruction B. There is no necessity binding B to follow A. But this clarification of standing in an arbitrary relation needs some work, because loop instructions in various coding languages require a closure of the loop instruction after an opening of the loop instruction. Think of FOR and NEXT in BASIC. As with many philosophical definitions, mine is prone to counterexamples. My definition seems counterintuitive to an extent because some washing machines and microwaves surely count as computers by this definition and we do not ordinarily count these as computers. At present I am not sure what to say about this overinclusion by our ordinary standards: there is simply a category of machines which we do not have an ideal word for and which are identified by my definition? I am prepared to count these as computers as well, albeit computers of a peculiar kind. 

Programming languages are languages for instructing a computer. They are today often called coding languages and some programming languages appear to be regarded as dead languages. I define a dead programming language as follows: a language which is no longer of value to use except for reasons of historical scholarship or nostalgia. But strictly speaking, there may be some other peculiar ends for which a dead language is useful, and this specification of ends has in mind a person of normal preferences in our society.

The coding language BASIC was packaged with personal computers in the 1980s. Is it a dead language now? Some will say that it is, others will deny this. I cannot say who is right in this dispute, but I will give two reasons for nevertheless learning BASIC today. One reason is this. You are a parent and you meet with other parents at school. They are talking about coding and how it is essential to learn some coding today. One of them says, "I don’t know much about these new languages, but I used to code a bit in BASIC in the '90s," leading others to speak of similar experiences. It might be important for you to also have some of these experiences.

Another reason has to do with a problem of the family. A clever person in our own society in their youth faces a choice between attaching themselves to well-established projects or supporting newer projects. If you don't support some newer projects and these come to fruition, the people involved will presumably remember that. They want to support families who supported them. Of course, there are various rules against doing this explicitly. I have not consulted the law, but I believe you cannot at present legally make a computer to which you show your passport and then get enhanced features. But a society such as our own features numerous practices which combine seemingly contradictory qualities, practices that would be described as cases of having your cake and eating it. One spares the rod but somehow doesn’t spoil the child; or within the work culture of an organization terminating the contract of a misbehaving worker is frowned upon but nevertheless the organization gets problematic workers leave. (The eccentric actress Jennifer Aniston apparently says, "My dad became a soap opera actor, and I was an extra in a skating rink scene on the soap. I didn't audition. It was nepotism all the way.") We can be confident that the computer industry has some way of rewarding families who learnt its ways in the 1980s, when computers were promoted as the future, if not before. Their children learnt BASIC, C, and assembly language and some advantage accrues to them as a consequence.


Note
If you use the FOR command in 1980s and early 90s BASIC, you have to use NEXT later, but we do not think FOR causes NEXT or do we? It is so complicated…


References
Aniston, Jennifer. n.d. "My dad became a soap opera actor, and I was an extra in a skating rink scene on the soap. I didn't audition. It was nepotism all the way." BrainyQuote. Available at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/jennifer_aniston_470427
Edward, Terence Rajivan. 2025. Going too conservative? The family and accepting unequal life chances. Available at PhilPapers at:
https://philpapers.org/rec/EDWGTC
Edward, Terence Rajivan. 2026 (version 4, version 1 2025). To have your cake and eat it: social practices in British society and beyond. Available at:
https://philpapers.org/rec/EDWTHY
Edward, Terence Rajivan. 2026. Taylor Swift studies: on "We Are Never Getting Back Together". Available at:
https://www.academia.edu/164933321/Taylor_Swift_Studies_on_We_Are_Never_Ever_Getting_Back_Together_