3 ms·
The article does have a fairly involved discussion on this point. It's probably worth pointing out which parts of the argument made in that section you specific
by Karellen 4y ago
The article does have a fairly involved discussion on this point. It's probably worth pointing out which parts of the argument made in that section you specifically agree/disagree with.
- guerrilla 4y agoI think they were clear enough. The machine code is the source code (despite the claim to the contrary.) It's that premise that is rightly rejected. As a result of that cheating, this program is also nothing like actual quines. A C program that reverse engineered itself by reading its own machine code is also not a quibe, to be clear.