Create programming language without using another

Is it possible to create a programming language without needing to birth it through another? Or if that isn't possible then is there way to create it through pure machine code?

Are you fucking retarded?

>>2
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. - Arthur Schopenhauer

>>3
1. Machine language has never been ridiculed, because it was the first goddamn thing we programmed computers with. Fuck off with your ``but punched cards'', it's obvious, irrelevant in this discussion and you know what I mean.

2. When in the history of computing has machine code ever been forcefully rejected by a committee of greedy kikes? You think the kikes at Intel made processors to read Ruby opcodes?

3. Of course it is evident. It has always been.

Head off back to Hacker Jews with your out-of-context quotes.

>>4

Is it possible to implement a programming language without needing to implement it through another?

Or if that isn't possible then is there way to implement it through pure machine code?

>>5
Yes, machine code.

Assembly language for your targeted architecture.

How about you stop making stupid questions and read a book, nigger.

>>6
How about architecture-independent machine code? And I mean machine code, not asm. Or just creating a programming language without needing to ``implement it''

>>7
The closest thing to architecture-independent machine code might be LLVM's IR.

You do not need a computer to define a programming language. Most languages are defined using Backus-Naur form.

I app directly in Java bytecode.

I app directly in appcode.

>>1

- Chemistry is a programming language.
- Your brain depends on chemistry.
- Implementing a programming language requires brain.

>>12
That so vague it like say computer is apping language.

>>12
Chemistry is chemistry, not a programming language.
My brain doesn't depend on shit.
It does?

the answer is yes OP but you have to create your own hardware

>>9
that only defines the syntax, not the behavior

1. Design your language in your head, consider it deeply
2. Implement a compiler for it, in itself, in a plaintext file. get it right.
3. Print it out and then read through, running it manually in your head, compiling every piece of it into assembly by hand
4. Assemble this "seed" and then run it on your own compiler implementation to create a second compiler it might be slightly different at the asm level
5. Use this new compiler to recompile your original source code, check the binary output is the same - if so you have correctly self hosted to a fixed point
6. You have pulled yourself up by your bootstraps, enjoy infinite heights

this is how the first compiler was created

>>1
I'm confused. You can see that programming languages exist, and you surely know that at one time they did not. Why are you asking this question?

>>18

at one time they did not.

when was that time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_algorithm#Historical_development

It appears in Euclid's Elements (c. 300 BC), specifically in Book 7 (Propositions 1–2) and Book 10 (Propositions 2–3).

>>1, you have been misled !!

>>19
That algorithm was defined using a natural language, not a programming language.

_{(stopping the dubsfaggot from dubsbumping)}