Re: What is wrong with Ada?

[Ray Blaak <rAYblaaK@STRIPCAPStelus.net>]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> The context in which I used the word "trivial" was processing of infinite
> inputs. Infinity was the scale of triviality here, not human's ability to
> write, sell or use programs, whatever they might be.

Yes, I know. I disagree with this use of trivial in a fundamental way, mainly
because it makes all possible programs that humans can use trivial. Finite
inputs are all we can work with in practical terms. 

We cannot ever use a program with infinite inputs simply because we cannot
wait long enough to see if the inputs are really infinite. If nothing else,
the death of the universe puts an upper bound on things.

Finite is plenty big enough to get work done, evolve life, etc. Quick: what's
the biggest finite number you can think of?

It is also a pet peeve of mine to play games with infinite numbers of
programs, mapping them to natural numbers, etc. Such games are also not useful
in practical terms, and do not give humans access to a larger class of
programs, or make programs any easier to "find". They really only aid in the
classification of computability theories.

-- 
Cheers,                                        The Rhythm is around me,
                                               The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak                                      The Rhythm is inside me,
rAYblaaK@STRIPCAPStelus.net                    The Rhythm has my soul.