What is Turing?

[Ivan]

Hi, can anyone answer a simple question for me? I just started using Turing and don't even understand what it is. All I know is that it's a language developed especially for Ontario high schools and as fas as I know it is not used anywhere else. So why am I learning it then? To be honest, I know nothing about programming yet, but learning something I am never going to use seems kind of stupid to me. Why didn't we start with C or C++ right away? Thanks

[ruscutie]

well, i thought the same thing 4 monts ago and i asked my teacher and she was like it makes u understand the basics.. so itz like the addition and subtraction of programming and itz difficult too compared to visual basic... it changes the way ur mind processes information and makes it more efficient... if u see most of the math we learn in high school is not required by us in future but it is taught so that we learn to think in a logical way...

[CodeMonkey2000]

We dont start with c/c++ because turng has a nicer syntax scheme. You dont need to worry about syntax, just worry about the logic.

[Clayton]

Yes, but there are so many other languages out there that have nice syntax schemes, but are still commercially used. Pascal, Ruby, and O'Caml just to name a few.

[Cervantes]

spearmonkey2000 @ Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:03 pm wrote:

We dont start with c/c++ because turng has a nicer syntax scheme. You dont need to worry about syntax, just worry about the logic.

No. This is fundamentally wrong. The difference between Turing and C or between Turing and C++ transcends simple differences in syntax. In C, most of what we accomplish is done using pointers. This forces us to think in a low-level sort of way, thinking about actual memory usage, rather than the logic of our program. In C, we have to deal with manual memory allocation and management, which is something we don't have to think about in Turing. Also, doesn't have an OOP system, while Turing does, albeit a poor one. Nonetheless, it gives an introduction to OOP. I don't know C++, but I'm fairly certain the reason we don't learn C++ to start is because it's huge and sticky and quirky.

Really, syntax is one of the most irrelevant reasons to choose one language above another.

[Clayton]

well, to a point:

brainfuck:

++++++++++[>+++++++>++++++++++>+++>+<<<<-]>++.>+.+++++++..+++.>++.<<+++++++++++++++.>.+++.------.--------.>+.>.

Ruby:

puts "Hello, World!"

output of both: "Hello, World!"

sure this is an extreme example, but it shows that syntax is a feasible reason to walk away for a language, even if only a minimal one.

[wtd]

No, it doesn't prove that point. Brainfuck has a much more elegant syntax than Ruby.

However, it's semantics are too simple to reasonably describe such problems.

[Clayton]

But to a beginner/intermediate to programming? Which would you pick as a beginner?

[Cervantes]

Obviously Ruby, but it's not a choice on the basis of syntax. It's a choice on the basis of semantics. The difference in syntax between Ruby and Brainfuck is a direct necessity of their different approaches to programming.

[[Gandalf]]

Freakman @ 2007-01-20, 12:43 pm wrote:

But to a beginner/intermediate to programming? Which would you pick as a beginner?

Yeah, but that's not because of syntax.

You're learning Turing not so that you can create useful programs or something along those lines, but instead to teach you the basics of programming and to teach you how to learn a programming language. The same can be said of any learning language, except in many cases the advantage those other languages have over Turing is that they're useful for both learning and real world application.

[Clayton]

Cervantes @ Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:00 pm wrote:

Obviously Ruby, but it's not a choice on the basis of syntax. It's a choice on the basis of semantics. The difference in syntax between Ruby and Brainfuck is a direct necessity of their different approaches to programming.

Okay, I understand where you're coming from. But you could also look at it as a direct link. Brainfuck's semantics are simpler than Ruby's for sure, but look at the syntax it produces, whereas Ruby is the exact opposite. I guess the point is, while it's not really syntax exactly, it's what appears to be at the surface, and that's where many people look.

Just saying