Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
a text? The answer is in the observation that the computer is a
semiotic machine
(Nadin
2011
,Nöth
2002
,Nake
2009
).
The computer is seen by these authors as a semiotic machine, because the stuff
it processes is of a semiotic nature. When the computer is running, i.e. when it is
working as a machine, it is executing a program. It is doing this under the control
of an operating system. The operating system is itself a program. The program,
that the computer is executing, takes data and transforms it into new data. All these
creatures—the operating system, the active program, and data—are themselves of
semiotic nature. This chapter is not the place to go deeper into the semiotic nature
of all entities on a computer.
17
So let us proceed from this basic assumption.
The assumption becomes obvious when we take a look at a program as a text.
Leaving aside all detail, programming starts from a more or less precise specifi-
cation of what a program should be doing. Then there is the effort of a group of
programmers developing the program. Their effort materialises in a rich mixture of
activities. Among these, the
writing of code
is central. All other kinds of activities
eventually collapse into the writing of code.
The finished program, which is nothing but the code for the requested function,
appears as a text. During his process of writing, the programmer must read the text
over and over again. And here is the realisation: the computer is also reading the
text! The kind of text that we call “computer program” constitutes a totally new
kind of poetry. The poetics of this poetry reside in the fact that it is written for two
different readers: one of them human, the other machine.
Their fantastic semiotic capabilities single out humans from the animal king-
dom. Likewise, the computer is a special machine because of its fantastic semiotic
capabilities. Semiotic animal and semiotic machine meet in reading the text that is
usually called a
program
.
Now, reading is essentially interpreting. The human writer of the program ma-
terialises in it the specification of some complex activity. During the process of his
writing, he is constantly re-reading his product as he has so far written it. He is
convinced of the program's “correctness”. It is correct as long as it does what it is
supposed to do. However, how may a text be actively
doing
anything?
The text can do something only if the computer is also reading it. The reading,
and therefore interpreting, of the program by the computer effectively transforms the
text into a machine. The computer, when reading the program text (and therefore:
interpreting it), cannot but execute it. Without any choice, reading, interpreting, and
executing the text are one and the same for the computer. The program as a text
is interesting for the human only insofar as the computer is brought to execute it.
During execution, the program reveals its double character as text-and-machine,
both at the same time. So programs are executable texts. They are texts as machine,
and machine as text.
After this general but also concrete remark about what is new in postmodern
times, we take a look at two specific and ambitious, albeit very different programs.
17
A topic is in preparation that takes a fundamental approach to this topic: P.B. Andersen &
F. Nake,
Computers and signs. Prolegomena to a semiotic foundation of computing
.
