Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!sci.ccny.cuny.edu!phri!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Look ... [or: one, two, three, many]
Message-ID: <18463:Jan219:52:0391@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 2 Jan 91 19:52:03 GMT
References: <19418@yunexus.YorkU.CA> <23986:Dec2703:47:1390@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1990Dec27.043209.7131@Think.COM>
Organization: IR
Lines: 16

In article <1990Dec27.043209.7131@Think.COM> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
> In article <23986:Dec2703:47:1390@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
> >I'd also like to point out that real-world programmers really don't care
> >whether a solution is part of ``the intrisic expressiveness'' of a
> >language as long as it is ``programmable in it.''
> You mean real-world programmers would be happy if we replaced Fortran,
> Pascal, C, and Lisp with raw Turing Machines?

I sure wouldn't mind a Turing Machine on my desk for some of those
big-memory computations. :-)

Seriously: No, because once you have equal power you start paying
attention to efficiency. If the hardware is crippled then things won't
run at a reasonable speed.

---Dan