[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [dvd-discuss] The Touretsky and Shamos debate at CMU.

On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Richard Hartman wrote:

> The standard "non-functional" format would be pseudo-code.

Actually, I heard that algol *was* pseudo-code, at least in the beginning
and until a compiler/interpreter was later designed to run it.

> But ... what happens when somebody creates an interpreter
> for pseudo-code?
> I'm sorry.  The definition of "functional format" is too
> fluid to be codified into law.

If congress only passed reasonable non-fluid laws, we wouldn't have the
DMCA and the chilling effect it has on scientific research. :)