🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <40569@nigel.ee.udel.edu> new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes:
# In article <19717:Jan220:38:5491@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
# >> Anonymous voice says:
# >> FORTRAN is a subset of C.
# >
# >This statement refers to much more than language power. In particular, C
# >cannot deal with certain features of Fortran syntax. Therefore Fortran
# >is not a subset of C. Why are you being facetious?
# >
# >---Dan
# 
# Well, if you write a FORTRAN interpreter in C, I don't see how you can
# say that FORTRAN is not a subset of C.  Precisely which "features of
# Fortran syntax" is C incapable of handling?  Or have I missed the
# point?   -- Darren
# -- 
# --- Darren New --- Grad Student --- CIS --- Univ. of Delaware ---

  Hmmm... by the same token, you can write a C interpreter in BASIC, and a
  BASIC interpreter in FORTRAN.  If I recall my set theory correctly, this 
  means that FORTRAN, BASIC, and C are all equivalent.  (Note that I am
  *not* advocating writing these *****s.  For that sort of thing, look in
  alt.masochism)

  What we have just rediscovered, children, is the rather well-known (gasp! 
  dare I say the dreaded words?) computer science theorem that any system 
  capable of general recursion is of equivalent power.  Of course, if raw 
  power were the only consideration we'd still all be punching decks of 
  absolute code.  With sewing needles.
-- 
| The above opinions may not be original, but they are mine and mine alone. |
|            "While it may not be for you to complete the task,             |
|                 neither are you free to refrain from it."                 |
+-=-=-    (I wish this _was_ original!)        D. C. Sessions          -=-=-+