There are several things that are all called regular expressions. The answer to your question is different depending upon which thing you want to talk about.
The three relevant distinctions for this question in my opinion are as follows:
The notion of regular languages and related things like recursive enumerability.
Individual regular languages ...
In computer science, "automaton" refers to some kind of finite state machine. This is a basic and fundamental model of computation, and automata are widely used in implementing simple electronic devices and in writing parsers, e.g., for programming languages.
The automaton is mainly used as a simple model of computation to check input strings on some defined conditions by reading the string and giving out whether the string is accepted in a defined language or not.
There are a lot of examples. A really crucial for example in terms of computing are the RegEx-expressions, if you heard of that. There are some ...
No. In formal language theory, a language is just a set of strings, and it has nothing to do with programming. Note also that the things that programming languages such as Perl call "regular expressions" are more powerful than the regular expressions used in computer science and can define some non-regular languages.
Regular expressions are at the very core of computer science, conceptually and historically.
Kleene's article in which he introduced them and proved them equal in power to finite automata is one of the foundational articles of computer science. It was the foundation of formal language theory, which was based on its results and its approach; it is an ...
(Warning, this historical account of increasing abstraction and declarative programming may annoy, confuse, or upset you:)
By far and large, programing languages happen on a continuum, with "pure" instances of languages being ideals. This is because there are a variety of platforms, architectures, and goals when writing software. Of course, ...
In an assembly language, you specify the sequence of instructions of your code. In other languages that are compiled, you specify the effect of these instructions, not the instructions themselves. The compiler is free to use any instructions that seem useful, as long as they lead to the desired effect.
It makes sense to pay attention to formal grammars when talking about programming languages. Typical program in assembly language has very simple grammar, consisting mainly of following productions (I'm assuming maximum two operands here):
Program = Instruction | Program Instruction
Instruction = [Label ":"] Operation Operand [Operand]
The grammar for ...
I'm not sure whether they have accepted meanings, but to the extent that they do, an "event" happens at an instantaneous point in time, as opposed to something ongoing. If I was reading something that used the word "mode", I probably wouldn't be sure what is meant by "mode" without looking at the context.
I'm not sure whether you should expect precise, ...
Honestly, I don't think the "discovered" vs "invented" is a distinction that matters. If you want to get into that, fine, but it's a matter of philosophy, not science.
To your main point, yes, regular languages are very much a part of computer science because, regardless of their history, they identify a class of computational problems and correspond to a ...
In essence I would say that assembly languages are a set of instructions that are translated into opcodes; while any higher language is transformed (i.e. compiled) into a set of assembly instructions which in turn are translated.