4 ms·

Are compilers a scam as well? There exists a program every problem you have, you just have to find the code.

tialaramex 4y ago
Crucially there is not a program for every problem. Many (presumably "Almost all" in a mathematical sense) problems are Undecidable and so a program can't do that.
- alextheparrot 4y ago
  Why are we not OK with the program producing the undecidability result?
  - cpitman 4y ago
    Because it is not generally possible to determine that the result is undecidable, when maybe searching a little longer would find it.
eternalban 4y ago
> There exists a program every problem you have, you just have to find the code. That proposition is that of general programming languages. The compiler's proposition is that it will take your programs and faithfully per the language specification produce object code suited for its intended deployment platform. So > Are [general purpose programming languages] a scam as well? Well, kinda. Most languages come with a hype brigade and before you know it, darling of the day is "the only rational choice" for writing. Also, many b.s. about solving problem x whereas they only hand the problem over to something else, sometimes the programmer. So (mildly) yeah.
frankreyes 4y ago
Not at the moment. but there was a time that some thought that we should be able to produce a general purpose programming language, to solve every problem. One size fits all. It took more than 40 years to realize that was never going to be. There's a joke about that in commit strip: https://www.commitstrip.com/en/2016/08/25/a-very-comprehensive-and-precise-spec/ https://www.commitstrip.com/en/2016/08/25/a-very-comprehensi...
- tialaramex 4y ago
  Your claim doesn't make any sense. The stored program electronic computers are a realisation of the concept from Turing, but Turing's work is based on Kurt Gödel's work, and the whole point of what Gödel showed was that no, you can't do that. There's a period of maybe a couple of decades at the start of the 20th century where Whitehead and Russell have used logic to prove that 1 + 1 = 2, and it seems like maybe all of mathematics can be placed on a firm foundation, and then Gödel shows that oops, no, actually a logical system can't prove some true things, or, it can contradict itself. No firm foundations for us.
  - frankreyes 4y ago
    Oh yes the the incompleteness theorem. Sorry. I meant to say "one single ruling programming language to solve every Turing programming problem". For example Java will be the ultimate ruling programming language, having a CPU that would directly run java byte code. Nope.

Crucially there is not a program for every problem. Many (presumably "Almost all" in a mathematical sense) problems are Undecidable and so a program can't do that.

alextheparrot 4y ago
Why are we not OK with the program producing the undecidability result?
- cpitman 4y ago
  Because it is not generally possible to determine that the result is undecidable, when maybe searching a little longer would find it.

eternalban 4y ago

> There exists a program every problem you have, you just have to find the code. That proposition is that of general programming languages. The compiler's proposition is that it will take your programs and faithfully per the language specification produce object code suited for its intended deployment platform. So > Are [general purpose programming languages] a scam as well? Well, kinda. Most languages come with a hype brigade and before you know it, darling of the day is "the only rational choice" for writing. Also, many b.s. about solving problem x whereas they only hand the problem over to something else, sometimes the programmer. So (mildly) yeah.

frankreyes 4y ago

Not at the moment. but there was a time that some thought that we should be able to produce a general purpose programming language, to solve every problem. One size fits all. It took more than 40 years to realize that was never going to be. There's a joke about that in commit strip: https://www.commitstrip.com/en/2016/08/25/a-very-comprehensive-and-precise-spec/ https://www.commitstrip.com/en/2016/08/25/a-very-comprehensi...

tialaramex 4y ago
Your claim doesn't make any sense. The stored program electronic computers are a realisation of the concept from Turing, but Turing's work is based on Kurt Gödel's work, and the whole point of what Gödel showed was that no, you can't do that. There's a period of maybe a couple of decades at the start of the 20th century where Whitehead and Russell have used logic to prove that 1 + 1 = 2, and it seems like maybe all of mathematics can be placed on a firm foundation, and then Gödel shows that oops, no, actually a logical system can't prove some true things, or, it can contradict itself. No firm foundations for us.
- frankreyes 4y ago
  Oh yes the the incompleteness theorem. Sorry. I meant to say "one single ruling programming language to solve every Turing programming problem". For example Java will be the ultimate ruling programming language, having a CPU that would directly run java byte code. Nope.