[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>> 1. a is more powerful than b if it cannot be mapped directly to
>>machine code (ie compiled)
>
> 1. I would suppose anything that can be interpreted can theoretically
> be compiled, especially if we were to allow a source to source
> compilation (I know that you do not allow that but given that most
> source to source is to C and C can obviously be compiled it seems
> reasonable to me).
Actually also here I suppose Rick was referring to dynamic evaluation,
which for a compiled program would require one to ship a compiler and
runtime with the program. Thus it would not be mappable directly to
machine code.
I think this might be something one should put into the calculation
of what makes a program more powerful.
Or maybe something like:
Can the program take input streams and turn these into code?
The main point about the usage of the word power in this conversation
is that excess of power leads to greater possibility of dangerous
errors. And dynamic evaluation can increase the chance of error.
Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen
P.S: Okay, I should probably shut up now :)
|
