Come for the quick hacks, stay for the epiphanies. | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
Thanks for that BrowserUK. Those points are informative to me, and seem to be on the money. Clearly the example I used is a poor one for having tried to make the point I was attempting to make. (My lack of depth of knowledge in the arena). Perhaps our understanding of language is driving our innovation in hardware instead of the reverse. I wonder what might happen if the reverse was approached more aggressively. Maybe that is what is happening at a certain level in the fields of bio-mimicry and maybe even in quantum computing. At any rate, I think you are right; hardware does not affect languages at this point in time, but I don't doubt that it will in the future. I find it hard to believe that all machine languages by nature have to operate at the basic level in one of two states. I think the success thus far has limited the innovation. I have gone way off track relative to the original post and suspect I better stop. Thanks for the interesting meditation. ...the majority is always wrong, and always the last to know about it... Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results... A solution is nothing more than a clearly stated problem...otherwise, the problem is not a problem, it is simply an inconvenient fact In reply to Re^3: The future of Perl?
by wjw
|
|