[Chicago] Question about Machine Language.

Carl Karsten carl at personnelware.com
Mon Dec 7 16:09:27 EST 2015


two more directions this can go:

Why don't we call just code in machine language?

1. It's really hard.

2. There are many CPUs, each have there own instruction sets. (think
languages.a)  So code written using 484 instructions won't run on a 386,
and code written for a 386 won't take advantage of 486 features.   And
running on an ARM chip is right out.





On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Naomi Ceder <naomi.ceder at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7 December 2015 at 13:57, Lewit, Douglas <d-lewit at neiu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I was reading an article on the web about how all programming languages
are "Turing complete".  I believe that basically means that all programming
languages are able to communicate with the computer's CPU using the binary
codes of machine language.
>
>
> Uh, that's not actually what "Turing Complete" means...  It doesn't  have
anything to do with binary or machine language... from Wikipedia (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness):
>
> "To show that something is Turing complete, it is enough to show that it
can be used to simulate some Turing complete system. For example, an
imperative language is Turing complete if it has conditional branching
(e.g., "if" and "goto" statements, or a "branch if zero" instruction. See
OISC) and the ability to change an arbitrary amount ofmemory locations
(e.g., the ability to maintain an arbitrary number of variables). Since
this is almost always the case, most (if not all) imperative languages are
Turing complete if the limitations of finite memory are ignored."
>
> Cheers,
> Naomi
>
>> Okay then.... so why don't we get rid of C, C++, Java, Python, Ruby,
Perl, Ocaml, Haskell, C#, F#, etc, etc and why don't we call just code in
machine language?  Bear in mind that I'm asking this question from the
point of view of the Devil's Advocate because I know almost nothing about
machine language.  But it's an interesting question.  It's related to the
question, "Why don't we have one universal natural language?  Let's get rid
of English, French, Spanish, German, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic,
Hebrew, etc, etc, and replace them all with one universal language that
everyone understands".
>>
>> I'm interested in reading your thoughts and ideas.  Thanks.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Douglas.
>>
>> P.S.  Sorry to hear about the Django Study Group.  I thought Mark Graves
was very friendly and did a great job of demonstrating various web
applications using Python.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chicago mailing list
>> Chicago at python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Naomi Ceder
> https://plus.google.com/u/0/111396744045017339164/about
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chicago mailing list
> Chicago at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
>



--
Carl K
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/chicago/attachments/20151207/1d52804d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Chicago mailing list