Most of our CS students suck at CS

Re:Most of our CS students suck at CS by abossy on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @12:56PM (#102292)

I never had enough legos to built anything creatively substantial. It was like writing a program in ASM with only ADD, JUMP, and LOAD.

[ Parent | on HN ]

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Most of our CS students suck at CS by jey on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @01:34PM (#102314)

Add a jump-if-zero instruction and that might actually be Turing complete (assuming your ADD instruction will eventually overflow).

[ Parent | on HN ]

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Most of our CS students suck at CS by jey on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @02:42PM (#102364)

Oops, good point about the indirect JUMP instruction.

Maybe we don't need a STORE. The ADD instruction could operate directly on memory operands. Then I guess we can ditch LOAD too.

[ Parent | on HN ]