On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 04:24:43 +1100, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tried to confuse everyone with this message:
>On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:00:10 +0000, Timofei Shatrov wrote: > >> On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:36:02 +1100, Steven D'Aprano >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tried to confuse everyone with this >> message: >> >>>On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote: >>> >>>> if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own >>>> as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as >>>> the system Common Lisp already provides. Stuff like this is impossible >>>> in other languages. >>> >>>Dude. Turing Complete. Don't you Lisp developers know anything about >>>computer science? >> >> Here, you've basically shot yourself in the ass. Appealing to Turing >> completeness when talking about programming language features is about the >> dumbest thing you can make. In Turing sense, a program is simply a function >> that >> takes an argument and returns a value. It doesn't say anything about how this >> function was implemented. It could be Turing machine, lambda calculus, Markov >> chains or whatever else. All these methods produce the same set of programs, >> but >> that doesn't mean you could implement lambda in Turing machine for example. > >What exactly are you trying to say here? Is this a comment about the >relative practicality of writing code in a Turing machine versus >high-level languages, or are you implying that lambda calculus is "bigger" >than any Turing-complete language? > I'm trying to say that the ability to read is a very useful skill in a Usenet discussion. Your posts, like the two quoted above, seem to indicate the lack of it. -- |Don't believe this - you're not worthless ,gr---------.ru |It's us against millions and we can't take them all... | ue il | |But we can take them on! | @ma | | (A Wilhelm Scream - The Rip) |______________| -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
