2 ms·
Well, no. One thing are language abstractions, another thing are algorithmic abstractions; language abstractions exist for human convenience, algorithmic abstra
by aforwardslash 2y ago
Well, no. One thing are language abstractions, another thing are algorithmic abstractions; language abstractions exist for human convenience, algorithmic abstractions are... Algorithms. Consider this: can you implement a hash table in your favourite language? If true,can you implement it in assembly for your favourite architecture? And if true, can you binary code it on a limited architecture?
If you stopped on the first yes, an LLM is aready more advanced.
- skydhash 2y agoI struggle to see any difference other than self-imposed one. Things like function calling, pattern matching, loop, try-catch, OOP, traits,... are all patterns that occur often enough someone decided to include some into a language. Same with common data structures and associated operations, but they go into the standard library instead as they are more operational (manipulate data) instead of (notational?) (direct the operation). But it's all execution in the end, just that it's more useful to manipulate the higher level constructs instead of opcodes and bits. Less flexibility yes, but a huge improvement in usefulness and productivity.