Re: Low-level vs. High-level programming (was My First Computer)

["Randy McLaughlin" <randy@nospam.com>]

"Maciej Witkowiak" <ytm@elysium.pl.andremowe.me> wrote in message
slrnbfv66s.hrq.ytm@spektr.bossstation.dnsalias.org">news:slrnbfv66s.hrq.ytm@spektr.bossstation.dnsalias.org...
> Randy McLaughlin wrote:
> >> That brings up an interesting thought.  The Turing machine was designed
to
> >> break German ciphers.  Should anything that is Turing complete be able
to
> >> break ciphers?
>
> Turing machine is a mathematical model. It wasn't designed to complete a
> specific task. It even can't be built in the real world (like most of
> mathematical models - it is ideal).
> Real machines used for cracking Enigma code were 'cryptological bombs',
first
> built in Poland and used before WW2 and then Ultra in Bletchley Park where
> Turing and many more joined.
>
> > Better yet instead of "Should anything that is Turing complete be able
to
> > break ciphers?", require that every computer only be allowed to break
> > cyphers.  That way we would not have this thread and everyone would
agree.
>
> It amazes me how easy people talk on topics they have no idea about (oh
wait,
> wildstar in my killfile...). Talking about 'Turing machine' and 'being
> Turing-complete' is not a discussion about which soundtrack in 8-bit game
is
> the best. These terms are well-defined and there is no place for argue.
> If you don't like these definitions - fine, but you are no longer refering
to
> these terms then. You talk about something else. If you don't understand
the
> definition - don't talk at all.
>
> Read something. Both of you.
>
> Turing machine:
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine
>
> Turing-complete:
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing-complete
>
> Enigma:
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigma
>
> ytm
>
> -- 
> Najlepsza sygnatura to brak sygnatury.

In case you had not noticed when I said I know of no "Turing-complete"
computer programming language I put quotes around it to point out that there
is no "Turing-complete" computer language.  I also pointed out that the
defintion used for "Turing-complete" is incomplete and coloquial.  The
Turing engine was a model for hardware that can run "software".  The term
"Turing-complete" definition is backwards to define software that runs on
hardware (yes I understand and have continually shown that "Turing-complete"
is also used to define hardware).  My point is that the uses of computers
has changed so dramatically that the desire for a "Turing-complete" language
should be re-evaluated.  There are so many computer tasks that do not
require computations that having a language that does computations is not
necessarily an asset.