From: bagpiper@pnet02.gryphon.com (Michael Hunter)
Subject: Re: Ada vs standard languages / reliability
Date: 9 Nov 89 09:40:14 GMT [thread overview]
Message-ID: <22013@gryphon.COM> (raw)
gateley@m2.csc.ti.com (John Gateley) writes:
>I probably shouldn't do this, but here are some nitpicks:
>Ada is NOT a much more powerful language than C. Ada has some features
>that C doesn't, and C has some features that Ada doesn't and so on.
>They are both turing complete (or whatever the phrase is). If you
>are going to make such a broad statement, you need to carefully
>define what powerful is.
Yea...I could write a turing machine in either....in fact you can write a
turing machine with gotos, moves, and compares. I don't think I would even be
happy with this machine.
Mike Hunter - Box's and CPU's from HELL: iapx80[012]86, PR1ME 50 Series, 1750a
UUCP: {ames!elroy, <routing site>}!gryphon!pnet02!bagpiper
INET: bagpiper@pnet02.gryphon.com
next reply other threads:[~1989-11-09 9:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1989-11-09 9:40 Michael Hunter [this message]
1989-11-17 20:12 ` Official lang. interpretations for ACVC 1.11 Ch13 tests? Andrew Nguyen
[not found] <21858@gryphon.COM>
[not found] ` <6974@hubcap.clemson.edu>
[not found] ` <97490@ti-csl.csc.ti.com>
1989-11-13 16:36 ` Ada vs standard languages / reliability Bjarne Stroustrup
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox