🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct19.192241.8830@newshost.lanl.gov>, jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles) writes:
|> Oh.  Now I disagree with you even more.  For example, it is clear that
|> all high level languages can be translated into assembly (or they won't
|> work at all), and that assembly is less expressive (in a human-factors
|> sense).  To be sure, assembly allows you to do everything the machine
|> is capable of.  However, the ease of programming is not exactly the
|> best in the world.
|> 
|> Or, do you intend to define "expressiveness" as merely that raw,
|> hands-on control and not ease of use?

You are totally missing the point. First the definition is not mine
but a formal definition from the literature. Second, the definition I
mentioned does NOT imply that assembly is more expressive than any
language. Otherwise, would you care to show me a LOCAL translation
(without knowning the rest of the program) of the following Scheme
fragment into your favorite assembly language:

		(call/cc (lambda (k) k))

Compare this with the while loop example. A while-loop can be
translated to an equivalent repeat-loop WITHOUT knowing ANYTHING about
the rest of the program.

-- 
Amr Sabry				     	    sabry@cs.rice.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he
will pick himself up and continue on.-- Churchill's Commentary on Man