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

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

"Sam Gillett" <samgillett@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4JLLa.16295$Ei4.6679@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> Randy McLaughlin wrote ...
>
> >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?
>
> 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?
>
> The original purpose of ENIAC was the calculation of trajectories.  A lot
of
> people would be very bored if the only computer game available were
> Artillery!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Sam Gillett aka Mars Probe @ Starship Intrepid 1-972-221-4088
>      Last 8-bit BBS in the Dallas area.  Commodore lives!

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.