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

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

"Peter Karlsson" <petekarl@online.no> wrote in message
oprriuj7upqawxb3@news.online.no">news:oprriuj7upqawxb3@news.online.no...
> Randy McLaughlin:
>
> > Turing engines can be shown (emulated) on any computer that I am aware
> > of, that does not mean that any computer programming language is
"Turing-
> > complete".
>
> Your definition of "Turing complete" seems not to be the same as anyone
> else in the field of computer science, then. Most computer programmging
> languages of today are Turing complete, it is a well-defined measurement
of
> whether a programming language is truly a programming language or not
> (although some programming languages, while being Turing complete, are not
> as useful as others).
>
> Perhaps that explains why you keep on thinking that HTML is a programming
> language?
>
> -- 
> \\//
> Peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/
>
>   I do not read or respond to mail with HTML attachments.

My point has been to "troll", I am looking to see who sees the truth.
People can either repeat what others have told them or they can use their
god given brains to think.

The coloquial use of "Turing-complete" made perfect sense in the 40's.
Every program was concieved as a fancy calculator.  "Turing-complete" has
been used to define how a computer must function so poorly that no one is
willing to even look for the truth.

Shortly before Henry Ford made automobiles (notice I am not saying cars)
affordable (available) to everyone.  As a selling point the salesmen pointed
out that the automobiles can replace wagons, they could be used for
everything from taking the family to church to carrying a hog to market.

How many people believe their cars would be a good way to carry hogs to
market?  That is why we have specialized automobiles today.  When Turing
postulated his engine he had no conception of what we would use computers
for today.  The fact that there is no "Turing-complete" law is the genius of
flexability.  In the 40's the only reason for computers was to calculate
(even if the calculations were to help break cyphers).  Computer
progrogramming languages are tools used to program computers.  Yesterdays
languages were designed to calculate, to limit todays tools limits how well
and how efficiently a computer can be used today.  As far as I can see using
computer for what they were originally used for will continue forever, does
that mean that we should stop using computers for anything else?

There is no definition that states that a computer programming language has
to meet any test other than be able to create computer programs.