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

[wildstar <wildstar128@hotmail.com>]

"Randy McLaughlin" <randy@nospam.com> wrote in
news:U7nLa.436$4e.0@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com: 

> It has been twenty years since I set up LOGO for nephew and niece, I
> had forgotten that it could even save variables.
> 
> LOGO is not "Turing-complete".  You miss the point of
> "Turing-complete": The Turing Engine was a definition of what we now
> call a digitial computer, it has nothing to do with the computer
> programming languages.  I know of no computer programming language
> that is "Turing-complete".  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". 
> 

I seldom use Turing as the complete defining point. I may look at "Turing 
implemented" not may make a decision on a language that is "Turing absent". 
So I guess the key is whether a language has "Turing implementation" or is 
the language simply "Turing absent". Remember LOGO for me just takes a 
little time of refamiliarizing. I think LOGO makes a good circuit trace 
layout language for laying out computer trace-line and is used for it. I 
clearly would implement a set of tools that will serve a PCB engineer 
someday. Part of getting into the business. LOGO will never be obsolete for 
that and would be great to expand on.