5 ms·

the term applications was just as common as programs? Apps as a short form for directories names or variable names was also pretty common?

laumars 6y ago
“Applications” were a subset of “Programs” and generally covered productivity type software like image editors, word processors, etc. Then you had “games”, “system software” and I think possibly “tools” or “utilities” too (the latter which were single purpose software like a clock or calculator). It’s more of a recent trend to call all software “applications” (or “apps”) irrespective of their utility. This is something Apple popularised on the iPhone.
- badsectoracula 6y ago
  I always remembered the other way around: applications being composed by one or more programs (e.g. a lot of software had more than one executables, especially on DOS). Also i highly doubt there was any specific target for "applications", otherwise, e.g., Windows SDK wouldn't use the term to describe, well, all applications (for example the Win32 Programmer's Reference that came with many compilers in the 90s starts with "The Microsoft Win32 Programmer's Reference contains the application programming interface (API) set needed to write applications for Windows® 95 and Windows NT." - and the entire reference uses the term application instead of program)
  - laumars 6y ago
    “Program” can refer to executables if you’re talking in the context of old programming languages such as Pascal and COBOL as they’d literally have a “Program” statement. But I don’t recall anyone calling individual executables anything other than exes on Windows. As for the API naming conventions, Wikipedia describes the use of “Application” pretty well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_software#Metonymy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_software#Metonymy
    - skissane 6y ago
      > “Program” can refer to executables if you’re talking in the context of old programming languages such as Pascal and COBOL as they’d literally have a “Program” statement. When I was younger, I wrote my own programs in GW-BASIC (and later QBASIC). I definitely remember calling them "programs" at the time. I taught myself programming from books in the school library (neither of my parents knew how to do it), and they definitely used the word "program" for what I was learning to write. But while Pascal has a "PROGRAM" statement, most BASIC dialects (including Microsoft's) don't. COBOL doesn't have a "PROGRAM" statement either, although it does have an "EXIT PROGRAM" statement. So I don't think whether something is called a "program" or not has anything to do with what language it is written in. > But I don’t recall anyone calling individual executables anything other than exes on Windows. Here's a software manual from 1993 – https://books.google.com/books?id=jAqUEgrLBa8C&pg=PA14 https://books.google.com/books?id=jAqUEgrLBa8C&pg=PA14 – you can see on that page the application is divided into a number of executables – "the core TS.EXE program" and a number of "General support utilities", one of which ("PRINTPCX.EXE") is described as "A program to print graphs". Although the other executables are not explicitly called "programs", it seems clear to me that "program" and "executable" are synonymous in the usage of the manual's authors. That is admittedly an application for MS-DOS, not Windows. But I don't believe there were any great differences in terminology in this area between MS-DOS and Windows.
      - laumars 6y ago
        > But while Pascal has a "PROGRAM" statement, most BASIC dialects (including Microsoft's) don't. COBOL doesn't have a "PROGRAM" statement either, although it does have an "EXIT PROGRAM" statement. It was PROGRAM-ID in COBOL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBOL#Hello,_world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBOL#Hello,_world > Here's a software manual from 1993 – https://books.google.com/books?id=jAqUEgrLBa8C&pg=PA14 https://books.google.com/books?id=jAqUEgrLBa8C&pg=PA14 – you can see on that page the application is divided into a number of executables – "the core TS.EXE program" and a number of "General support utilities", one of which ("PRINTPCX.EXE") is described as "A program to print graphs". Although the other executables are not explicitly called "programs", it seems clear to me that "program" and "executable" are synonymous in the usage of the manual's authors. That's a utility and I'd already said "utilities" were a classification of programs. The GPs point wasn't about utilities though. > That is admittedly an application for MS-DOS, not Windows. But I don't believe there were any great differences in terminology in this area between MS-DOS and Windows. Anecdotally I remember all executables being talked about as "programs" in the DOS era -- which might also be a throwback to when all software was written as a complete program and all executables were commands (eg pre-dynamically linked libraries so shared libraries would either have to be their own command or compiled into the each executable). But in fairness, terms like "program", "utility", "application" were, to some extent, rather fuzzy descriptions back then anyway. At least in the context of what we're describing anyway.

laumars 6y ago

“Applications” were a subset of “Programs” and generally covered productivity type software like image editors, word processors, etc. Then you had “games”, “system software” and I think possibly “tools” or “utilities” too (the latter which were single purpose software like a clock or calculator). It’s more of a recent trend to call all software “applications” (or “apps”) irrespective of their utility. This is something Apple popularised on the iPhone.

badsectoracula 6y ago
I always remembered the other way around: applications being composed by one or more programs (e.g. a lot of software had more than one executables, especially on DOS). Also i highly doubt there was any specific target for "applications", otherwise, e.g., Windows SDK wouldn't use the term to describe, well, all applications (for example the Win32 Programmer's Reference that came with many compilers in the 90s starts with "The Microsoft Win32 Programmer's Reference contains the application programming interface (API) set needed to write applications for Windows® 95 and Windows NT." - and the entire reference uses the term application instead of program)
- laumars 6y ago
  “Program” can refer to executables if you’re talking in the context of old programming languages such as Pascal and COBOL as they’d literally have a “Program” statement. But I don’t recall anyone calling individual executables anything other than exes on Windows. As for the API naming conventions, Wikipedia describes the use of “Application” pretty well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_software#Metonymy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_software#Metonymy
  - skissane 6y ago
    > “Program” can refer to executables if you’re talking in the context of old programming languages such as Pascal and COBOL as they’d literally have a “Program” statement. When I was younger, I wrote my own programs in GW-BASIC (and later QBASIC). I definitely remember calling them "programs" at the time. I taught myself programming from books in the school library (neither of my parents knew how to do it), and they definitely used the word "program" for what I was learning to write. But while Pascal has a "PROGRAM" statement, most BASIC dialects (including Microsoft's) don't. COBOL doesn't have a "PROGRAM" statement either, although it does have an "EXIT PROGRAM" statement. So I don't think whether something is called a "program" or not has anything to do with what language it is written in. > But I don’t recall anyone calling individual executables anything other than exes on Windows. Here's a software manual from 1993 – https://books.google.com/books?id=jAqUEgrLBa8C&pg=PA14 https://books.google.com/books?id=jAqUEgrLBa8C&pg=PA14 – you can see on that page the application is divided into a number of executables – "the core TS.EXE program" and a number of "General support utilities", one of which ("PRINTPCX.EXE") is described as "A program to print graphs". Although the other executables are not explicitly called "programs", it seems clear to me that "program" and "executable" are synonymous in the usage of the manual's authors. That is admittedly an application for MS-DOS, not Windows. But I don't believe there were any great differences in terminology in this area between MS-DOS and Windows.
    - laumars 6y ago
      > But while Pascal has a "PROGRAM" statement, most BASIC dialects (including Microsoft's) don't. COBOL doesn't have a "PROGRAM" statement either, although it does have an "EXIT PROGRAM" statement. It was PROGRAM-ID in COBOL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBOL#Hello,_world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBOL#Hello,_world > Here's a software manual from 1993 – https://books.google.com/books?id=jAqUEgrLBa8C&pg=PA14 https://books.google.com/books?id=jAqUEgrLBa8C&pg=PA14 – you can see on that page the application is divided into a number of executables – "the core TS.EXE program" and a number of "General support utilities", one of which ("PRINTPCX.EXE") is described as "A program to print graphs". Although the other executables are not explicitly called "programs", it seems clear to me that "program" and "executable" are synonymous in the usage of the manual's authors. That's a utility and I'd already said "utilities" were a classification of programs. The GPs point wasn't about utilities though. > That is admittedly an application for MS-DOS, not Windows. But I don't believe there were any great differences in terminology in this area between MS-DOS and Windows. Anecdotally I remember all executables being talked about as "programs" in the DOS era -- which might also be a throwback to when all software was written as a complete program and all executables were commands (eg pre-dynamically linked libraries so shared libraries would either have to be their own command or compiled into the each executable). But in fairness, terms like "program", "utility", "application" were, to some extent, rather fuzzy descriptions back then anyway. At least in the context of what we're describing anyway.