5 ms·

Killing Turing equivalence is a bigger deal than killing RS-232 ports and floppy drives.

pohl 17y ago
Are there really 9 readers of HN (you and 8 positive mods) who think that neither C, nor Objective C, nor C++, nor JavaScript are as Turing equivalent as any programming language can be said to be whilst constrained in a finite amount of memory? How else could one be said to have "killed" Turing equivalence unless it didn't remain after other source languages were excluded? Melodrama trumps computer science today?
- jules 17y ago
  Well, yeah, but you're not allowed to exploit this turing equivalence.
- prodigal_erik 17y ago
  Turing equivalence guarantees there's a way to write a program in some other language that produces exactly the same results as a program in ObjC. This deep compatibility made it feasible for the industry to adopt better and better languages. But now Apple wants to put a stop to it and enshrine a few decrepit languages with flaws most of us escaped a decade ago. (As I understand it, JavaScript doesn't belong on the list. It's permitted, but some of the Cocoa Touch API isn't accessible, so it's not really a substitute for the others.)
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    But now Apple wants to put a stop to it and enshrine a few decrepit languages with flaws most of us escaped a decade ago. Your opinion of the languages does not trump the reality that the overwhelming majority of iPhone OS applications were written in them, as was the OS itself, even when it was not a requirement. Trying to make it sound like recent changes to the App Store agreement are the only reason people use Objective-C is a big stretch.
    - prodigal_erik 17y ago
      I know that ObjC has always been heavily used in NEXTSTEP and OS X apps (if not a lot else) even before this. My concern is that mainstream vendors will conclude that we tolerate this sort of abuse, and the problem will spread. I care that the industry permits good languages to exist, not whether the majority are interested in using them.
  - defen 17y ago
    To be fair, that program in some other language only produces the "same results" - there's no guarantee it won't be significantly slower or use significantly more memory. Which is exactly Steve's point.
    - boucher 17y ago
      Nor is there any guarantee it won't be significantly faster or use significantly less memory, which is the OP's point.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- CamperBob 17y ago
  Melodrama? http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/04/apple-scratch-app/ http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/04/apple-scratch-app/
  - pohl 17y ago
    yup. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_children_(politics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_children_(politics)
    - CamperBob 17y ago
      What's more melodramatic than a company like Apple being afraid of an app like Scratch?
      - pohl 17y ago
        While your post has the superficial form that a retort might have, that word doesn't mean what you think it means... Melodrama: (noun) a sensational dramatic piece with exaggerated characters and exciting events intended to appeal to the emotions. Language, behavior, or events that resemble drama of this kind.
        CamperBob 17y ago
        If you don't see Jobs's writings on the subject as emotionally overwrought appeals ("We have to keep our platform pure to protect you, our loyal user!"), we'll have to agree to disagree. This is exactly like a "Won't somebody think of the children?" appeal. What else do you call it when the company rejects both a programming tool and a dictionary for "bad language?"
        pohl 17y ago
        "We have to keep our platform pure to protect you, our loyal user!" If you want to make a case that they are making emotionally overwrought appeals, you should have the decency to provide a direct quote to make your case. Abusing quotations marks by putting them around your own subjective interpretation just tells me that you've got nothing to offer.
- jrockway 17y ago
  If there's no difference between languages, why not just require everyone to use a Turing machine? It's just as easy, right, because they're all turing-equivalent.
- spot 17y ago
  it was killed for users, not for developers.
- akshaybhat 17y ago
  yeah why dont you try coding in Assembly for that matter or even better submit the circuit designs,
sambeau 17y ago
You are allowed to program in C++ and C, too. There is also a good chance that Ruby will join that list as soon as the LLVM version (that Apple is working on) is finished. (see http://www.macruby.org/ http://www.macruby.org/)

pohl 17y ago

Are there really 9 readers of HN (you and 8 positive mods) who think that neither C, nor Objective C, nor C++, nor JavaScript are as Turing equivalent as any programming language can be said to be whilst constrained in a finite amount of memory? How else could one be said to have "killed" Turing equivalence unless it didn't remain after other source languages were excluded? Melodrama trumps computer science today?

jules 17y ago
Well, yeah, but you're not allowed to exploit this turing equivalence.
prodigal_erik 17y ago
Turing equivalence guarantees there's a way to write a program in some other language that produces exactly the same results as a program in ObjC. This deep compatibility made it feasible for the industry to adopt better and better languages. But now Apple wants to put a stop to it and enshrine a few decrepit languages with flaws most of us escaped a decade ago. (As I understand it, JavaScript doesn't belong on the list. It's permitted, but some of the Cocoa Touch API isn't accessible, so it's not really a substitute for the others.)
- GHFigs 17y ago
  But now Apple wants to put a stop to it and enshrine a few decrepit languages with flaws most of us escaped a decade ago. Your opinion of the languages does not trump the reality that the overwhelming majority of iPhone OS applications were written in them, as was the OS itself, even when it was not a requirement. Trying to make it sound like recent changes to the App Store agreement are the only reason people use Objective-C is a big stretch.
  - prodigal_erik 17y ago
    I know that ObjC has always been heavily used in NEXTSTEP and OS X apps (if not a lot else) even before this. My concern is that mainstream vendors will conclude that we tolerate this sort of abuse, and the problem will spread. I care that the industry permits good languages to exist, not whether the majority are interested in using them.
- defen 17y ago
  To be fair, that program in some other language only produces the "same results" - there's no guarantee it won't be significantly slower or use significantly more memory. Which is exactly Steve's point.
  - boucher 17y ago
    Nor is there any guarantee it won't be significantly faster or use significantly less memory, which is the OP's point.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
CamperBob 17y ago
Melodrama? http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/04/apple-scratch-app/ http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/04/apple-scratch-app/
- pohl 17y ago
  yup. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_children_(politics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_children_(politics)
  - CamperBob 17y ago
    What's more melodramatic than a company like Apple being afraid of an app like Scratch?
    - pohl 17y ago
      While your post has the superficial form that a retort might have, that word doesn't mean what you think it means... Melodrama: (noun) a sensational dramatic piece with exaggerated characters and exciting events intended to appeal to the emotions. Language, behavior, or events that resemble drama of this kind.
      - CamperBob 17y ago
        If you don't see Jobs's writings on the subject as emotionally overwrought appeals ("We have to keep our platform pure to protect you, our loyal user!"), we'll have to agree to disagree. This is exactly like a "Won't somebody think of the children?" appeal. What else do you call it when the company rejects both a programming tool and a dictionary for "bad language?"
        pohl 17y ago
        "We have to keep our platform pure to protect you, our loyal user!" If you want to make a case that they are making emotionally overwrought appeals, you should have the decency to provide a direct quote to make your case. Abusing quotations marks by putting them around your own subjective interpretation just tells me that you've got nothing to offer.
jrockway 17y ago
If there's no difference between languages, why not just require everyone to use a Turing machine? It's just as easy, right, because they're all turing-equivalent.
spot 17y ago
it was killed for users, not for developers.
akshaybhat 17y ago
yeah why dont you try coding in Assembly for that matter or even better submit the circuit designs,

sambeau 17y ago

You are allowed to program in C++ and C, too. There is also a good chance that Ruby will join that list as soon as the LLVM version (that Apple is working on) is finished. (see http://www.macruby.org/ http://www.macruby.org/)