
Turkish: 
>> Sean: Chomsky'ye baktık ve Finite'ye baktık. 
Devlet otomatları
ve bana sırada ne olabileceğine dair gizli bir önizleme yaptınız,
ve benim ilk düşüncem
“Tüm bu not işaretlerinin anlamı nedir ve nereden geliyorlar?”
>> DFB: Chomsky içgüdüsel olarak kendisine hitap eden bir notasyona gitti
matematiksel mantıkçılar veya teorik bilgisayar bilimcileri 
günümüzde - çok sıkı, çok kompakt.
Temelde bir programlama hakkında ne söylerdi 
dil tanımlayıcısı
tanımlamaya çalıştığımız, Chomsky'deki her şey.
dünya bir cümledir.
Bunu zaten otoparka koyduk:
"Bu dilde yasal bir cümle beş beş beş beş beş beşdir."
Yani Chomsky notasyonunda her şey bir 'S'.
Tanımlayıcıların problemi hakkında ne söylerdi, mantıklı
dil,
bir mektupla başlamak zorundayız. Ben buna L. diyeceğim
Ve sonra, tanımlayıcının kuyruk parçası.
Şey, hiç bir şey olamaz çünkü tek bir harf bir
Her dilde oldukça iyi tanımlayıcı.

English: 
>> Sean: We've looked at Chomsky and we've looked at Finite 
State Automata,
and you've given me a sneak preview about what might be next,
and my first thought was
"What do all these notation marks mean, and where do they come from?"
>> DFB: Chomsky instinctively went for a notation that appeals to
mathematical logicians or theoretical computer scientists 
nowadays -- very tight, very compact.
What he would basically say about a programming 
language identifier,
which we're trying to define, is that everything in Chomsky's
world is a sentence.
We've covered this already in the car park:
"A legal sentence in this language is five-five-five-five-five."
So everything's an 'S' in Chomsky notation.
What he would say about the identifiers problem ..., 
In sensible languages,
we've got to start off with a letter. I'll call that L.
And then, the tail piece of the identifier.
Well, it could be nothing at all because a single letter is an
identifier in pretty well every language.

English: 
>> Sean: We've looked at Chomsky and we've looked at Finite 
State Automata,
and you've given me a sneak preview about what might be next,
and my first thought was
"What do all these notation marks mean, and where do they come from?"
>> DFB: Chomsky instinctively went for a notation that appeals to
mathematical logicians or theoretical computer scientists 
nowadays -- very tight, very compact.
What he would basically say about a programming 
language identifier,
which we're trying to define, is that everything in Chomsky's
world is a sentence.
We've covered this already in the car park:
"A legal sentence in this language is five-five-five-five-five."
So everything's an 'S' in Chomsky notation.
What he would say about the identifiers problem, in sensible
language, is,
we've got to start off with a letter. I'll call that L.
And then, the tail piece of the identifier.
Well, it could be nothing at all because a single letter is an
identifier in pretty well every language.

Turkish: 
Ancak, kuyruk parçası daha fazla harf, daha fazla rakam olabilir
kombinasyon. İnce.
Şimdi, 50'li yılların 1960’a döndüğü zamanın sonuna kadar
bir sürü ondu
ilk dili olan ALGOL dilini tanımlamak
bir komite tarafından tasarlanmak
ve her zamanki komite problemleriyle karşılaştı.
o döneme düşün
FORTRAN oradaydı, COBOL oradaydı, asla, sonraya kadar
resmi bir tanımı vardı.
ALGOL halkı, şöyle bir şey kullanacağımızı söyledi.
Chomsky gösterimi
yasal bir programın ne olduğunu tanımlamak için.
ALGOL 60'da olan John Backus ve Peter Naur
belirleme komitesi -
Backus, FORTRAN'ın büyük mucitlerinden biri olarak ünlüydü;
Çok ünlü bir Avrupalı ​​bilgisayar bilimcisi Peter Naur -
daha açıklayıcı bir şeye ihtiyacımız olduğunu söylediler.
Ve şuna benzeyen bir gösterimi icat ettiler:
sivri parantez!

English: 
But the tailpiece could be more letters, more digits, in any
combination. Fine.
Now, round about the time late '50s turning into 1960, there
was a whole bunch of them
defining the language ALGOL, which was the first language to
be designed by a committee
and ran into all the usual committee problems, but when you
think back to that era,
FORTRAN was there, COBOL was there, they never, until later
on, had a formal definition.
The ALGOL people said we are going to use something like
Chomsky notation
to define what's a legal program.
John Backus and Peter Naur, who were on the ALGOL 60
defining committee --
Backus was famous as one of the big inventors of FORTRAN;
Peter Naur, a very famous European computer scientist --
they said we need something that is more self-explanatory.
And they invented a notation that looks like this:
pointy brackets!

English: 
But the tailpiece could be more letters, more digits, in any
combination. Fine.
Now, round about the time late '50s turning into 1960, there
was a whole bunch of them
defining the language ALGOL, which was the first language to
be designed by a committee
and ran into all the usual committee problems, but when you
think back to that era,
FORTRAN was there, COBOL was there, they never, until later
on, had a formal definition.
The ALGOL people said we are going to use something like
Chomsky notation
to define what's a legal program.
John Backus and Peter Naur, who were on the ALGOL 60
defining committee --
Backus was famous as one of the big inventors of FORTRAN;
Peter Naur, a very famous European computer scientist --
they said we need something that is more self-explanatory.
And they invented a notation that looks like this:
pointy brackets!

Turkish: 
Evet, bu erken! Ve bir tanımlayıcı diyeceğiz - bir
cümle, tanımlamaya çalıştığımız bir tanımlayıcıdır.
Ve Chomsky'nin okunu kullanmak yerine,
Bir programın ortasında meydana gelir ve karışıklığa neden olur,
burada işlem yapılmayan "işlem" olarak tanımlandılar.
hiç bir programın içinde ortaya çıkar.
Fakat tanımın bir parçası olduğu açık olmasını istediler.
Ve dediler ki, "Kolay, buna L demeyeceğiz, gideceğiz
 "demek için.
Ve hemen avantajı görüyorsunuz: O zaman yapabilirsiniz
diyelim ki, ahh !, takip eden bir mektup
 olarak adlandırdığımız bir kuyruk parçası.
Bir şeyleri sivri parantez içine koyarak şöyle diyoruz:
Kelimenin tam anlamıyla aramanız gerektiği anlamına gelmiyor
girişinizdeki karakter harflerini, hayır demek istiyoruz
"yasal bir mektup olabilecek herhangi bir şey".

English: 
Yes, this early on! And we are going to say, an identifier - not a
sentence, it's an identifier we're trying to define.
And rather than using Chomsky's arrow, which they felt might
occur in the middle of a program and cause confusion,
they wanted a "is defined as" operation here which wouldn't
ever occur inside a program.
But they wanted it to be clear it was part of the definition.
And they said, "Easy, we're not going to call it L, we're going
to say ".
And you see the advantage straight away: That you can then
say, ahh!, it's a letter followed by
a tailpiece, which we'll call .
By putting things in the pointy brackets, we're saying:
We don't literally mean that you must look for
the characters l-e-t-t-e-r on your input, no, we mean
"anything that can be a legal letter".

English: 
Yes, this early on! And we are going to say, an identifier - not a
sentence, it's an identifier we're trying to define.
And rather than using Chomsky's arrow, which they felt might
occur in the middle of a program and cause confusion,
they wanted a "is defined as" operation here which wouldn't
ever occur inside a program.
But they wanted it to be clear it was part of the definition.
And they said, "Easy, we're not going to call it L, we're going
to say ".
And you see the advantage straight away: That you can then
say, ahh!, it's a letter followed by
a tailpiece, which we'll call .
By putting things in the pointy brackets, we're saying:
We don't literally mean that you must look for
the characters l-e-t-t-e-r on your input, no, we mean
"anything that can be a legal letter".

English: 
So further down here there'd be another definition saying a 
letter is an 'A', a 'B', a 'C' (...) all the way up to 'Z', and all that.
The tailpiece is far more complicated because it's any mix of
further letters or further digits,
but there could be a definition for digits.
But the point is, they're readable things here, they're readable
notions as they're sometimes called.
And they are pretty well self-explanatory, far more appealing
to be setting out a definition of a programming language,
than you forever having to remember, "Oh, a letter capital
'D', is that a digit or is it a denominator?" You know.
Of course the theoreticians say, "Oh, it's far too verbose, but
yes, I expect I do understand.
You've got to make it clear to people who have got no brain,
exactly what's going on."
So this was very popular for defining languages.
>> Sean: So this is a bit like having a how-to guide, is it? Like
saying "This is not programming; this is how the programming works."
Yeah, exactly, it's a blueprint for legal programs -- all of them
-- they've got to fit into this template basically;
that's what the formal definition did.

English: 
So further down here there'd be another definition saying a 
letter is an 'A', a 'B', a 'C' (...) all the way up to Z, and all that.
The tailpiece is far more complicated because it's any mix of
further letters or further digits,
but there could be a definition for digits.
But the point is, they're readable things here, they're readable
notions as they're sometimes called.
And they are pretty well self-explanatory, far more appealing
to be setting out a definition of a programming language,
than you forever having to remember, "Oh, a letter capital
'D', is that a digit or is it a denominator?" You know.
Of course the theoreticians say, "Oh, it's far too verbose, but
yes, I expect I do understand.
You've got to make it clear to people who have got no brain,
exactly what's going on."
So this was very popular for defining languages.
>> Sean: So this is a bit like having a how-to guide, is it? Like
saying "This is not programming; this is how the programming works."
Yeah, exactly, it's a blueprint for legal programs -- all of them
-- they've got to fit into this template basically;
that's what the formal definition did.

Turkish: 
Bu yüzden aşağıda daha ileride bir başka tanım var. 
harf, 'A', 'B', 'C' (...) 'den Z' ye kadar olan şeydir.
Kuyruk parçası çok daha karmaşık çünkü herhangi bir karışımı
daha fazla harf veya daha fazla rakam,
ancak rakamlar için bir tanım olabilir.
Fakat mesele şu ki, burada okunabilir şeyler, okunabilir durumda
bazen dendikleri gibi kavramlar.
Ve onlar oldukça açıklayıcı, çok daha çekici
Bir programlama dilinin tanımını yapmak,
sonsuza dek hatırlamak zorunda olduğundan, "Ah, bir harf başkenti
'D', bir rakam mı yoksa bir payda mı? "Bilirsin.
Elbette, teorisyenler "Ah, çok ayrıntılı, ama
evet, umarım anladım.
Beyni olmayan insanlara açıkça söylemelisin.
tam olarak ne oluyor. "
Yani bu dilleri tanımlamak için çok popülerdi.
>> Sean: Yani bu nasıl bir rehberlik yapmak gibi bir şey, değil mi? Sevmek
"Bu programlama değil; program böyle çalışır."
Evet, aynen, bu yasal programlar için bir plan - hepsi
- temel olarak bu şablona uyacaklar;
Resmi tanım bu yaptı.

English: 
And the interesting thing, as many of you are yelling at me now
is, "This is XML, isn't it?"
It is the forerunner of XML. XML, as some of you know,
started of with a thing called SGML,
which was its earlier form, but it was refined into being XML.
And right back from the early SGML days, somebody saw
Backus-Naur Form notation and said
"That is going to be fantastically useful for what we
want to do."
The characteristic of this [BNF] stuff is that you never ever
see it in the actual language itself,
and we can see advantages in actually making these appear
in documents.
Now, we all know this, don't we?! We all accidentally see a listing of
our Web pages that went wrong and you see
things like . So this is XML, be clear.
You see things like .
>> Sean: And actually, if anyone right-clicks on the YouTube webpage
and selects 'View Source',
they're going to see all this (...) 
>> DFB: Yes, they're going to see this, all of that.

Turkish: 
Ve ilginç olan şu ki, çoğunuz bana şimdi bağırıyorsunuz.
"Bu XML, değil mi?"
XML'in öncüsüdür. XML, bazılarınızın bildiği gibi,
SGML denilen bir şeyle başladım.
bu onun önceki haliydi, fakat XML olmaya rafine edildi.
Ve SGML'nin ilk günlerinden itibaren, birileri gördü
Backus-Naur Form Notasyonu ve Adı
“Bu bizim için fevkalade faydalı olacak
yapmak istiyorum."
Bu [BNF] olayının özelliği, hiç ve asla
gerçek dilin kendisinde görmek,
ve bunların ortaya çıkmasında avantajlar görebiliyoruz
belgelerde.
Şimdi, hepimiz bunu biliyoruz, değil mi? Hepimiz yanlışlıkla bir listesini görmek
yanlış giden Web sayfalarımız ve görüyorsunuz
 gibi şeyler. Yani bu XML, açık.
 gibi şeyler görürsünüz.
>> Sean: Aslına bakarsanız, herhangi biri YouTube web sayfasına sağ tıklarsa
ve 'Kaynağı Görüntüle'yi seçer,
bütün bunları görecekler (...) 
>> DFB: Evet, bunu görecekler, hepsini.

English: 
And the interesting thing, as many of you are yelling at me now
is, "This is XML, isn't it?"
It is the forerunner of XML. XML, as some of you know,
started of with a thing called SGML,
which was its earlier form, but it was refined into being XML.
And right back from the early SGML days, somebody saw
Backus-Naur Form notation and said
"That is going to be fantastically useful for what we
want to do."
The characteristic of this [BNF] stuff is that you never ever
see it in the actual language itself,
and we can see advantages in actually making these appear
in documents.
Now, we all know this, don't we?! We all accidentally see a listing of
our Web pages that went wrong and you see
things like . So this is XML, be clear.
You see things like .
>> Sean: And actually, if anyone right-clicks on the YouTube webpage
and selects 'View Source',
they're going to see all this (...) 
>> DFB: Yes, they're going to see this, all of that.

Turkish: 
Fakat XML insanlarının farkına vardığı şey buydu.
"sonuna" eğik çizgisini tanıtın -
sadece notasyonu biraz ayrıntılı bir şekilde inceleyin - gerçekten kullanabilirsiniz
gerçek bir belge.
"Paragraf burada başlıyor" ve "Paragraf burada bitiyor" deyin.
Buradaki çizgi, başlar ve biter, bu sadece bir işaretleyici.
eğikliği kaçarsanız çoğu tarayıcı hoşgörülü olur,
ama, teorik olarak orada olması gerektiğini biliyorsunuz.
Böylece, yeni bir hayat kira verdiler.
bunu sadece soyutta tutmayacağız,
Açıkça tanımlamak için onu belgelerin içinde kullanacağız.
işlerin başladığı ve işlerin bittiği yer.

English: 
But what the XML people realized was that so long as you
introduce the "end-of" slash --
just elaborate the notation a bit -- you really could use it in
an actual document.
Say: "the paragraph starts here" and "the paragraph ends here".
The break-line here, it starts and finishes, it's just a marker,
and most browsers are tolerant if you miss the slash out,
but, you know, theoretically that should be there.
So, they gave it some new lease of life, really, by saying, well,
we're not going to just keep it in the abstract,
we're actually going to use it, within documents, to clearly delineate
where things start and where things finish.

English: 
But what the XML people realized was that so long as you
introduce the "end-of" slash --
just elaborate the notation a bit -- you really could use it in
an actual document.
Say: "the paragraph starts here" and "the paragraph ends here".
The break-line here, it starts and finishes, it's just a marker,
and most browsers are tolerant if you miss the slash out,
but, you know, theoretically that should be there.
So, they gave it some new lease of life, really, by saying, well,
we're not going to just keep it in the abstract,
we're actually going to use it, within documents, to clearly delineate
where things start and where things finish.
