[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



"Kelly Hall" <hall@priest.com> wrote in message
news:v%MJa.573$my.52230207@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Randy McLaughlin" <randy@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:vsLJa.2649$QC5.140@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
> > That is my point you are using a test that determines whether a piece of
> > hardware is a computer to test to see if a language is a computer
> > programming language.  You are mixing apples and oranges.
>
> You might as well bitch that English dictionaries are often written in
> English, leading to some sort of chicken and egg problem.  In reality,
it's
> not a big deal.
>
> Another nice thing about Turing machines is they don't have to physically
> exist to be useful.  The Lambda calculus existed for a long time before a
> clever grad student hand-coded 'eval' into machine language and made Lisp.
>
> Kelly

It similar to the chicken and the egg problem but it's not.  The Turing
engine defines what is required to be a particular type of machine.  That is
not related to what language it takes to program such a machine.  The main
definition it had on programming was that the program was stored (on tape
originally vs. hard-wired contemporaries).