|
|
|
|
|
by msla
1156 days ago
|
|
Abstracting over the physical reality of the machine is part of the point. The physical reality of the machine isn't the focus in programming language design or theory, and it certainly isn't the focus of making maintainable code with properties like referential transparency, type correctness, and parallelizability. Abstractions, in short, allow us to make anything worth making. The machine has no types. The machine has no variables. The machine has no functions, procedures, scoping, or information hiding. The machine has no assembly language. The machine has no machine code. The machine, ignoring the physical reality and focusing on an abstraction which could still potentially be in the realm of software and not physics, has a certain number of bits in flip-flops perturbed by other bits coming in on pins. > Haskell's power users famously don't actually make anything with it (modulo pandoc and jekyll) Self-contradiction is self-negation. You've destroyed your own argument, such as it was. |
|