Machines do lots of 'programming' and there are lots of contexts in which they do it. For example GCC works with GIMPLE http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/G

Machines do lots of 'programming' and there are lots of contexts in which they do it. For example GCC works with GIMPLE http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/GIMPLE.html#GIMPLE http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/GIMPLE.html#GIMPLE All sorts of compilers write machine code based on intermediate languages or human readable source. If you want to know what paradigms they follow, you would have to look at the internal data structures of each tool. Usually, a machine figuring out how to 'go fetch a beer' is only going to use the tools and techniques that its builder designed it to. Even if you have built a powerful optimization system, its optimizations will probably be over-optimized to the point where no single identifiable paradigm for solving a large number of problems emerges. Programming languages and paradigms used by people are practical trade-offs that meet the majority of problems in a good, but not the best way. That's why it sometimes is dumb to pursue languages or paradigms that fit a particular problem extremely well or to explore esoteric and meaningless language constructs except in the hopes that it will lead to some practical and general usefulness later. Mathematics historically has always had people diving into the most esoteric depths, not because it was useful, but because it was a conspicuous display of wealth of time and effort.