From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Symbolic Interpretation (Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:15:50 GMT
Reply-To: lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson)
Organization: ACUSON, Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Aug27.162706@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.163835.12301@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
>writes:

>> By the time a program gets to the machine instruction level, there is
>> no remnant of the data structures.
>
>   Nonsense.  The data structures cause the machine language to take on the
>form it has.

No, the data structures cause the compiler to create the machine
language in a particular way.  The machine code only accesses memory,
not structure.

>If you hand coded the machine language you would get a better,
>faster program (ten years later).  The data structures leave GIANT footprints
>ALL OVER the resulting machine language.  Drew, why don't you go learn some
>computer science?

I'm sorry.  I've only had the time for 2 degrees in it.  Perhaps I can
go farther later to learn what I've missed.

>You have an entirely naive and possibly detrimental view of
>the philosophy of programming.
>
>> The same memory pattern can be
>> accomplished by a tedious organization of memory blocks by an assembly
>> language programmer.
>
>   No, not unless he is God almighty or the program is incredibly simple. 
>Drew, I write assembly code and I patch compiler generated assembly code.  No
>human being would intentionally generate the stuff that comes out of a
>compiler.  An novice might do worse, a professional better, but compilers
>generate literally inhuman code.

I didn't say that a person would want to do this.  But it could be done.

>>  The machine execution is not affected by the data
>> structures.
>
>   Nonsense again!  Using a balance binary tree data structure instead of an
>insertion sort list makes an incredible difference, for example.  The "data
>structure" exists at all levels of the program; you can tell because the B-tree
>data structure is faster no matter if you code it in assembly or a high level
>language.

This is because the B-tree ALGORITHM is faster.  The implementation of
the algorithm is aided by the use of data structures.

>> Perhaps you don't know what a data structure is.  It is an
>> abstraction.  A way of labeling memory with a conceptual purpose.  They
>> are sometimes used without any memory allocation.
>
>   Right.  Something that improves performance 652% is not real.  A mere
>abstraction.  Sure.

If I use your "B-tree data structures" and bubble sort them, will I get
a performance improvement?


>> I also doubt that all of science would fall apart if belief in
>                                                       ^^^^^^
>> evolutionary origin fell by the wayside.
>
>  I agree.  We don't "believe".  We accept the proof.

Semantic nit picking.  Doesn't anyone read in context for the main
point any more?

>If, on the other hand,
>the preponderance of scientists rejected evolution given the current state of
>science, science would be toast.  Evolution is completely compelling on
>scientific grounds.  Rejection of evolution must impeach all of science as
>the methedology is uniform.

You are the second I've seen with that view.  Perhaps you could tell me
how science would be "toast" if evolutionary origin were discarded.


-- 
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.culture.usenet