Re:Most of our CS students suck at CS
by apgwoz on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @12:26PM
(#102278)
When I was a wee lad, I didn't know what software was, but I had a huge box of legos and an imagination. My parents would buy me the playsets, and I'd build them to get ideas about how "masters" built things and would proceed to immediately take them apart and build new things with the pieces and the knowledge. This also happens to be what good hackers do. Hackers are always reading code, reading about code and learning what the "masters" do. Then they piece together all that they learned and create something new. It's the same exact process, and that is why your theory is correct.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
I never had enough legos to built anything creatively substantial. It was like writing a program in ASM with only ADD, JUMP, and LOAD.
Re:Most of our CS students suck at CS
by procrastitron on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @01:17PM
(#102305)
I think it's more like having to fit your program within a 512 byte sector.
Add a jump-if-zero instruction and that might actually be Turing complete (assuming your ADD instruction will eventually overflow).
Re:Most of our CS students suck at CS
by procrastitron on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @02:29PM
(#102357)
Actually, if the JUMP instruction allows an indirect address, then it is already Turing-complete. I know X86 treats indirect jumps as a separate instruction, but it's not hard to imagine an assembly language where the two use the same instruction.
EDIT: Nope, we forgot there is no STORE instruction. Thus, no way whatsoever of writing output.