-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- I see that Coinstar now also offers vouchers for Starbucks or iTunes. How do you redeem the voucher with Starbucks? Do they give you a Starbucks card? Regardless, I've got a lot of coffee...
- Dude, I'm just joking with you Applebees. Chill. And yes, the stylus is soooo 1994. But some things from the past are worth preserving.
- Steve: Great comment, to which I would add just a couple of points. First, to the extent that a corporation that may provide the "pipes" is separate from one that provides the content,...
- My top 5: 1. <a href="http://ww.autohotkey.com/">AutoHotKey</a> - This is a simple yet powerful macro scripting program for Windows. I created a simple one-line script...
- "Don’t understand how you iPhone zombies get along without one." It does not help your argument any when you insist on insulting users of another device. You arguments come off as...
DISQUS
Returning? Login
1 year ago
"This is completely wrong. Source code is perfectly understandable to computers. Indeed, there are programs called interpreters that allow computers to directly execute programs stored in source code form."
The fact that the computer needs an additional interpreter to understand the source code means that the computer does not understand the source code at all. By your logic I can be accused understanding Japanese if there happens to be a person standing next to me who can interpret for me. I cannot understand a word of Japanese and unless I have the internal ability to do so you cannot rightfully accuse me of that capability.
1 year ago
What I don't understand is what makes source code different from an "mathematical algorithm" but then how then is a series of instructions for building a machine different from a "mathematical algorithm"?
1 year ago
Distinguishing between a computer's "intrinsic" capabilities and those capabilities that requires "additional help" seems like a fool's errand to me. You can, in fact, build computers that directly execute human-readable programming languages. On the other hand, some CPU's, such as Transmeta's Crusoe, essentially execute machine language "in software." And there are languages like Java that compile to a bytecode that machine languages nevertheless have to interpret.
Waxman's point was that it required human intervention before a computer could execute source code. When Waxman says that "A lot of work has to be done in items of debugging and testing," he's talking about more than just knowing to download the relevant interpreter and/or run the code through gcc. This clearly is not so.
JWB, the difference is that a mathematical algorithm deals entirely with abstract mathematical constructs like numbers and variables, whereas the instructions for building a machine necessarily involve real-world parameters that can only be approximated by mathematical description. "2 + 2 = 4" is a mathematical algorithm. "Put two eggs and two cups of flour into a bowl" is a recipe. "Egg" and "flour" are not abstract concepts that can be given precise mathematical definitions, and so therefore the latter is not a mathematical algorithm.
1 year ago
1 year ago
Shocking.
1 year ago