From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,baaf5f793d03d420 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: fc89c,97188312486d4578 X-Google-Attributes: gidfc89c,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,97188312486d4578 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,6154de2e240de72a X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) Subject: Re: What's the best language to start with? [was: Re: Should I learn C or Pascal?] Date: 1996/09/10 Message-ID: <5136on$7qj@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 179669951 references: <01bb8df1$2e19d420$87ee6fce@timpent.airshields.com> <4vcac4$gm6@zeus.orl.mmc.com> <01bb8f19$9a89d820$32ee6fce@timhome2> <841797763snz@genesis.demon.co.uk> <322f864d.42836625@news.demon.co.uk> <01bb9bf9$61e9e0e0$87ee6fce@timpent.airshields.com> <50sj6q$aci@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> <01bb9d25$9cb3cb00$32ee6fcf@timhome2> <50v6k3$soo@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> <01bb9ded$cd0fdf00$32ee6fcf@timhome2> organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.ada nntp-posting-user: ok Date: 1996-09-10T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "Tim Behrendsen" writes: >"If this process turned out to be non-procedural..." <--- this is >impossible according to known laws of physics. I honestly don't see this. I don't personally know all the known laws of physics; my Msc was in underswater acoustics which isn't exactly TOE-of-the-month even if the refraction equation _is_ formally identical to the one-dimensional Schroedinger equation. I have read a number of papers on quantum computing, and think I understand the idea. Now quantum computers cannot compute anything that a "procedural" computer cannot compute, but they _can_ compute things asymptotically faster than any possible 'procedural' computer (precisely because they are not discrete one-step-at-a-time finite state beasts). So if Tim Behrendsen knows which presently known laws of physics make quantum computers impossible, he should publish in Nature. >Going back to the SQL example, SQL is an expression of the algorithm, >but it is not possible to "directly execute" SQL; it has to be >translated into a procedural algorithm, and this is the same >with all "non-procedural expression" languages. Tell me, do you regard optical computing as procedural? If you don't (and since it is non-discrete, with no "time axis" that is useful in understanding how it works), then SQL _can_ be translated into a non-procedural but executable form. If you _do_ regard optical computing as procedural, then you have stretched the term to the point where you are no longer saying anything. -- Australian citizen since 14 August 1996. *Now* I can vote the xxxs out! Richard A. O'Keefe; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/%7Eok; RMIT Comp.Sci.