Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!psuvax1!swatsun!swatsun!gessel From: gessel@masada.cs.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Mark Gessel) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Look ... [or: one, two, three, many] Message-ID: Date: 4 Jan 91 18:57:20 GMT References: <23986:Dec2703:47:1390@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1990Dec29.110202.3862@mathrt0.math.chalmers.se> <19717:Jan220:38:5491@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <40569@nigel.ee.udel.edu> Sender: news@cs.swarthmore.edu Organization: Swarthmore College, Swarthmore Pa. Lines: 32 In-Reply-To: new@ee.udel.edu's message of 3 Jan 91 21:09:59 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: masada >Well, if you write a FORTRAN interpreter in C, I don't see how you can >say that FORTRAN is not a subset of C. Precisely which "features of >Fortran syntax" is C incapable of handling? Or have I missed the >point? -- Darren You have missed the point completely. If you can write a FORTRAN interpreter in C, C is as powerful or more than FORTRAN. If you can write a C interpreter in FORTRAN as well, they are equally powerful. But that does not make FORTRAN a subset of C, (nor C a subset of FORTRAN). If FORTRAN were a subset of C, any legal program in FORTRAN would be a legal program in C. Not only that, they should have the same semantics, although that becomes a difficult question when function libraries are considered. From a purely syntactic point of view, I'm pretty sure (although I don't know FORTRAN) that there are constructions in FORTRAN that C's syntax could not generate. Nonetheless, it has nothing to do with being able to write an interpreter for one language in another. Most languages are equally powerful. That is, any program you can write in one language you can write in another, (even though it could be really difficult). A language without any form of dynamic allocation is going to be weak, (is FORTRAN like this?). Dan -- Daniel Mark Gessel Independent Software Consultant Internet: gessel@cs.swarthmore.edu and Developer I do not represent Swarthmore College (thank God).