Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:30:10 +0200 From: des@des.no (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Sergey Zaharchenko <doublef@tele-kom.ru> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Beginning C++ in FreeBSD Message-ID: <xzpfzao18gd.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <20040428023920.GA382@Shark.localdomain> (Sergey Zaharchenko's message of "Wed, 28 Apr 2004 06:39:20 %2B0400") References: <20040425215837.3f4708fe.cpressey@catseye.mine.nu> <20040426094335.GA7578@online.fr> <20040426115842.GA4144@Shark.localdomain> <xzphdv5wq2q.fsf@dwp.des.no> <20040427160737.GA1325@Shark.localdomain> <xzpr7u918jv.fsf@dwp.des.no> <20040428023920.GA382@Shark.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sergey Zaharchenko <doublef@tele-kom.ru> writes: > If the thesis sounds like > >> Any algorithm that can be written in one Turing-complete language can >> be written in another Turing-complete language. > > then I think I understand it. No. A language is Turing-complete if it can be used to implement a universal Turing machine. What you quote is merely a consequence of Turing-completeness, not its definition. > In the functional way (`what it can do') C is not different from C++, as > you all are pointing out (so I'm not trying to persuade you Turing was > wrong). It's different in what it allows you to inform the system (the > linker, for instance) about (and it will learn that *before* any actual > algorithm of yours is executed). The operating system, the C++ compiler and the linker are all written in C, and using C, you can write an emulator for the computer, on which the OS, C++ compiler and linker will behave exactly as you expect. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpfzao18gd.fsf>