I'm new to programming and I've been told that "Javascript is a Turing complete programming language". What is a "Turing complete" P.language?... I've tried to read some articles in Wiki like Turing complete, or Turing completeness but still couldn't get an asnwer that was enough primal and clear to me...
In layman's terms, you can think of it as a "complete" programming language.
In practice, languages which are not Turing complete have somewhat crippling limitations, such as ones which disallow recursion. It may be fine for a limited-purpose language, but it means that some algorithms cannot be expressed, and some others require tortured workarounds.
In computer science, it is an important principle that complex systems can be "reduced" (proven to be isomorphic, i.e. fundamentally equivalent) to very simple systems which we can reason about. It is fairly easy to reason about what a Turing machine (a very crude theoretical abstraction of a modern computer) can and cannot do; we then know that our conclusions must be true for any system which can be reduced to a Turing machine.
But for your concrete question, this is just a snobbish way to tell the snobs you are one of them, actually.
I have code written in old-style Fortran 95 for combustion modelling. One of the features of this problem is that one have to solve stiff ODE system for taking into account chemical reactions influence. For this purpouse I use Fortran SLATEC library, which is also quite old. The solving procedure is straight forward, one just need to call subroutine ddriv3 in every cell of computational domain, so that looks something like that:
do i = 1,Number_of_cells ! Number of cells is about 2000
call ddriv3(...) ! All calls are independent on cell number i
end do
ddriv3 is quite complex and utilizes many other library functions.
Is there any way to get an advantage with CUDA Fortran, without searching some another library for this purpose? If I just run this as "parallel loop" is that will be efficient, or may be there is another way?
I'm sorry for such kind of question that immidiately arises the most obvious answer: "Why wouldn't you try and know it by yourself?", but i'm in a really straitened time conditions. I have no any experience in CUDA and I just want to choose the most right and easiest way to start.
Thanks in advance !
You won't be able to use or parallelize the ddriv3 call without some effort. Your usage of the phrase "parallel loop" suggests to me you may be thinking of using OpenACC directives with Fortran, as opposed to CUDA Fortran, but the general answer isn't any different in either case.
The ddriv3 call, being part of a Fortran library (which is presumably compiled for x86 usage) cannot be directly used in either CUDA Fortran (i.e. using CUDA GPU kernels within Fortran) or in OpenACC Fortran, for essentially the same reason: The library code is x86 code and cannot be used on the GPU.
Since presumably you may have access to the source implementation of ddriv3, you might be able to extract the source code, and work on creating a CUDA version of it (or a version that OpenACC won't choke on), but if it uses many other library routines, it may mean that you have to create CUDA (or direct Fortran source, for OpenACC) versions of each of those library calls as well. If you have no experience with CUDA, this might not be what you want to do (I don't know.) If you go down this path, it would certainly imply learning more about CUDA, or at least converting the library calls to direct Fortran source (for an OpenACC version).
For the above reasons, it might make sense to investigate whether a GPU library replacement (or something similar) might exist for the ddriv3 call (but you specifically excluded that option in your question.) There are certainly GPU libraries that can assist in solving ODE's.
The full definition of "Turing Completeness" requires infinite memory.
Is there a better term than Turing Complete for a programming language and implementation that seems useably complete, except for being limited by finite (say 100 word or 16-bit or 32-bit, etc.) address space?
I guess, you can bring the limited memory into the definition. Something like
A programming language for a given architecture (!) is Limitedly Turing Complete, if for every Turing Machine there exists a program that either
a) simulates the Turing Machine and returns the same result (iff the Turing Machine returns) or
b) at some point uses at least one available limited resource (e.g. memory) completely and returns an arbitrary result.
The question is, whether this intuitive definition really helps, or if it is better to assume that your architecture has unlimited memory (even though it is actually finite). Note that you don't even have to try hard in order to satisfy Limited Turing Completeness (as defined above), if you simply go into an infinite loop that mallocs one byte each time, you found your program for all Turing Machines.
The problem seems to be that you cannot pin implementation specific properties. For instance, if you have 500K ram, you may be able to express a program that computes 1+1 but maybe you're not, who knows.
I'd argue that languages like Haskell and Brainfuck (yes, I'm serious) are actually Turing Complete because they abstract resources away. While languages like C++ are only Limitedly Turing Complete, because at some point the address-space of pointers is exhausted and it is not possible to address any more data (e.g. sort a list of 2^2^2^2^100 items).
You could say that an implementation requires infinite memory to be truly turing complete, but languages themselves have no concept of a memory limit. You can make a compiler for a million-bit machine or a 4-bit machine without changing the language.
What does "orthogonality" mean when talking about programming languages?
What are some examples of Orthogonality?
Orthogonality is the property that means "Changing A does not change B". An example of an orthogonal system would be a radio, where changing the station does not change the volume and vice-versa.
A non-orthogonal system would be like a helicopter where changing the speed can change the direction.
In programming languages this means that when you execute an instruction, nothing but that instruction happens (which is very important for debugging).
There is also a specific meaning when referring to instruction sets.
From Eric S. Raymond's "Art of UNIX programming"
Orthogonality is one of the most important properties that can help make even complex designs compact. In a purely orthogonal design, operations do not have side effects; each action (whether it's an API call, a macro invocation, or a language operation) changes just one thing without affecting others. There is one and only one way to change each property of whatever system you are controlling.
Think of it has being able to change one thing without having an unseen affect on another part.
Broadly, orthogonality is a relationship between two things such that they have minimal effect on each other.
The term comes from mathematics, where two vectors are orthogonal if they intersect at right angles.
Think about a typical 2 dimensional cartesian space (your typical grid with X/Y axes). Plot two lines: x=1 and y=1. The two lines are orthogonal. You can change x=1 by changing x, and this will have no effect on the other line, and vice versa.
In software, the term can be appropriately used in situations where you're talking about two parts of a system which behave independently of each other.
If you have a set of constructs. A langauge is said to be orthogonal if it allows the programmer to mix these constructs freely. For example, in C you can't return an array(static array), C is said to be unorthognal in this case:
int[] fun(); // you can't return a static array.
// Of course you can return a pointer, but the langauge allows passing arrays.
// So, it is unorthognal in case.
Most of the answers are very long-winded, and even obscure. The point is: if a tool is orthogonal, it can be added, replaced, or removed, in favor of better tools, without screwing everything else up.
It's the difference between a carpenter having a hammer and a saw, which can be used for hammering or sawing, or having some new-fangled hammer/saw combo, which is designed to saw wood, then hammer it together. Either will work for sawing and then hammering together, but if you get some task that requires sawing, but not hammering, then only the orthogonal tools will work. Likewise, if you need to screw instead of hammering, you won't need to throw away your saw, if it's orthogonal (not mixed up with) your hammer.
The classic example is unix command line tools: you have one tool for getting the contents of a disk (dd), another for filtering lines from the file (grep), another for writing those lines to a file (cat), etc. These can all be mixed and matched at will.
While talking about project decisions on programming languages, orthogonality may be seen as how easy is for you to predict other things about that language for what you've seen in the past.
For instance, in one language you can have:
str.split
for splitting a string and
len(str)
for getting the lenght.
On a language more orthogonal, you would always use str.x or x(str).
When you would clone an object or do anything else, you would know whether to use
clone(obj)
or
obj.clone
That's one of the main points on programming languages being orthogonal. That avoids you to consult the manual or ask someone.
The wikipedia article talks more about orthogonality on complex designs or low level languages.
As someone suggested above on a comment, the Sebesta book talks cleanly about orthogonality.
If I would use only one sentence, I would say that a programming language is orthogonal when its unknown parts act as expected based on what you've seen.
Or... no surprises.
;)
From Robert W. Sebesta's "Concepts of Programming Languages":
As examples of the lack of orthogonality in a high-level language,
consider the following rules and exceptions in C. Although C has two
kinds of structured data types, arrays and records (structs), records
can be returned from functions but arrays cannot. A member of a
structure can be any data type except void or a structure of the same
type. An array element can be any data type except void or a function.
Parameters are passed by value, unless they are arrays, in which case
they are, in effect, passed by reference (because the appearance of an
array name without a subscript in a C program is interpreted to be
the address of the array’s first element)
from wikipedia:
Computer science
Orthogonality is a system design property facilitating feasibility and compactness of complex designs. Orthogonality guarantees that modifying the technical effect produced by a component of a system neither creates nor propagates side effects to other components of the system. The emergent behavior of a system consisting of components should be controlled strictly by formal definitions of its logic and not by side effects resulting from poor integration, i.e. non-orthogonal design of modules and interfaces. Orthogonality reduces testing and development time because it is easier to verify designs that neither cause side effects nor depend on them.
For example, a car has orthogonal components and controls (e.g. accelerating the vehicle does not influence anything else but the components involved exclusively with the acceleration function). On the other hand, a non-orthogonal design might have its steering influence its braking (e.g. electronic stability control), or its speed tweak its suspension.1 Consequently, this usage is seen to be derived from the use of orthogonal in mathematics: One may project a vector onto a subspace by projecting it onto each member of a set of basis vectors separately and adding the projections if and only if the basis vectors are mutually orthogonal.
An instruction set is said to be orthogonal if any instruction can use any register in any addressing mode. This terminology results from considering an instruction as a vector whose components are the instruction fields. One field identifies the registers to be operated upon, and another specifies the addressing mode. An orthogonal instruction set uniquely encodes all combinations of registers and addressing modes.
From Wikipedia:
Orthogonality is a system design
property facilitating feasibility and
compactness of complex designs.
Orthogonality guarantees that
modifying the technical effect
produced by a component of a system
neither creates nor propagates side
effects to other components of the
system. The emergent behavior of a
system consisting of components should
be controlled strictly by formal
definitions of its logic and not by
side effects resulting from poor
integration, i.e. non-orthogonal
design of modules and interfaces.
Orthogonality reduces testing and
development time because it is easier
to verify designs that neither cause
side effects nor depend on them.
For example, a car has orthogonal
components and controls (e.g.
accelerating the vehicle does not
influence anything else but the
components involved exclusively with
the acceleration function). On the
other hand, a non-orthogonal design
might have its steering influence its
braking (e.g. electronic stability
control), or its speed tweak its
suspension.[1] Consequently, this
usage is seen to be derived from the
use of orthogonal in mathematics: One
may project a vector onto a subspace
by projecting it onto each member of a
set of basis vectors separately and
adding the projections if and only if
the basis vectors are mutually
orthogonal.
An instruction set is said to be
orthogonal if any instruction can use
any register in any addressing mode.
This terminology results from
considering an instruction as a vector
whose components are the instruction
fields. One field identifies the
registers to be operated upon, and
another specifies the addressing mode.
An orthogonal instruction set uniquely
encodes all combinations of registers
and addressing modes.
To put it in the simplest terms possible, two things are orthogonal if changing one has no effect upon the other.
Orthogonality means the degree to which language consists of a set of independent primitive constructs that can be combined as necessary to express a program.
Features are orthogonal if there are no restrictions on how they may be combined
Example : non-orthogonality
PASCAL: functions can't return structured types.
Functional Languages are highly orthogonal.
Real life examples of orthogonality in programming languages
There are a lot of answers already that explain what orthogonality generally is while specifying some made up examples. E.g. this answer explains it well. I wanted to provide (and gather) some real life examples of orthogonal or non-orthogonal features in programming languages:
Orthogonal: C++20 Modules and Namespaces
On the cppreference-page about the new Modules system in c++20 is written:
Modules are orthogonal to namespaces
In this case they write that modules are orthogonal to namespaces because a statement like import foo will not import the module-namespace related to foo:
import foo; // foo exports foo::bar()
bar (); // Error
foo::bar (); // Ok
using namespace foo;
bar (); // Ok
(adapted from modules-cppcon2017 slide 9)
In programming languages a programming language feature is said to be orthogonal if it is bounded with no restrictions (or exceptions).
For example, in Pascal functions can't return structured types. This is a restriction on returning values from a function. Therefore we it is considered as a non-orthogonal feature. ;)
Orthogonality in Programming:
Orthogonality is an important concept, addressing how a relatively small number of components can be combined in a relatively small number of ways to get the desired results. It is associated with simplicity; the more orthogonal the design, the fewer exceptions. This makes it easier to learn, read and write programs in a programming language. The meaning of an orthogonal feature is independent of context; the key parameters are symmetry and consistency (for example, a pointer is an orthogonal concept).
from Wikipedia
Orthogonality in a programming language means that a relatively small set of
primitive constructs can be combined in a relatively small number of ways to
build the control and data structures of the language. Furthermore, every pos-
sible combination of primitives is legal and meaningful. For example, consider data types. Suppose a language has four primitive data types (integer, float,
double, and character) and two type operators (array and pointer). If the two
type operators can be applied to themselves and the four primitive data types,
a large number of data structures can be defined.
The meaning of an orthogonal language feature is independent of the
context of its appearance in a program. (the word orthogonal comes from the
mathematical concept of orthogonal vectors, which are independent of each
other.) Orthogonality follows from a symmetry of relationships among primi-
tives. A lack of orthogonality leads to exceptions to the rules of the language.
For example, in a programming language that supports pointers, it should be
possible to define a pointer to point to any specific type defined in the language.
However, if pointers are not allowed to point to arrays, many potentially useful user-defined data structures cannot be defined.
We can illustrate the use of orthogonality as a design concept by compar-
ing one aspect of the assembly languages of the IBM mainframe computers
and the VAX series of minicomputers. We consider a single simple situation:
adding two 32-bit integer values that reside in either memory or registers and
replacing one of the two values with the sum. The IBM mainframes have two
instructions for this purpose, which have the forms
A Reg1, memory_cell
AR Reg1, Reg2
where Reg1 and Reg2 represent registers. The semantics of these are
Reg1 ← contents(Reg1) + contents(memory_cell)
Reg1 ← contents(Reg1) + contents(Reg2)
The VAX addition instruction for 32-bit integer values is
ADDL operand_1, operand_2
whose semantics is
operand_2 ← contents(operand_1) + contents(operand_2)
In this case, either operand can be a register or a memory cell.
The VAX instruction design is orthogonal in that a single instruction can
use either registers or memory cells as the operands. There are two ways to
specify operands, which can be combined in all possible ways. The IBM design
is not orthogonal. Only two out of four operand combinations possibilities are
legal, and the two require different instructions, A and AR . The IBM design
is more restricted and therefore less writable. For example, you cannot add
two values and store the sum in a memory location. Furthermore, the IBM
design is more difficult to learn because of the restrictions and the additional instruction.
Orthogonality is closely related to simplicity: The more orthogonal the
design of a language, the fewer exceptions the language rules require. Fewer
exceptions mean a higher degree of regularity in the design, which makes the
language easier to learn, read, and understand. Anyone who has learned a sig-
nificant part of the English language can testify to the difficulty of learning its
many rule exceptions (for example, i before e except after c).
The basic idea of orthogonality is that things that are not related conceptually should not be related in the system. Parts of the architecture that really have nothing to do with the other, such as the database and the UI, should not need to be changed together. A change to one should not cause a change to the other.
Orthogonality is the idea that things that are not related conceptually should not be related in the system so parts of the architecture that have nothing to do with each other, like the database and UI should not be changed together. A change to one part of your system should not cause the change to the other.
If for example, you change a few lines on the screen and cause a change in the database schema, this is called coupling. You usually want to minimize coupling between things that are mostly unrelated because it can grow and the system can become a nightmare to maintain in the long run.
From Michael C. Feathers' book "Working Effectively With Legacy Code":
If you want to change existing behavior in your code and there is exactly one place you have to go to make that change, you've got orthogonality.
What considerations do I need to make if I want my code to run correctly on both 32bit and 64bit platforms ?
EDIT: What kind of areas do I need to take care in, e.g. printing strings/characters or using structures ?
Options:
Code it in some language with a Virtual Machine (such as Java)
Code it in .NET and don't target any specific architecture. The .NET JIT compiler will compile it for you to the right architecture before running it.
One solution would be to target a virtual environment that runs on both platforms (I'm thinking Java, or .Net here).
Or pick an interpreted language.
Do you have other requirements, such as calling existing code or libraries?
The same things you should have been doing all along to ensure you write portable code :)
mozilla guidelines and the C faq are good starting points
I assume you are still talking about compiling them separately for each individual platform? As running them on both is completely doable by just creating a 32bit binary.
The biggest one is making sure you don't put pointers into 32-bit storage locations.
But there's no proper 'language-agnostic' answer to this question, really. You couldn't even get a particularly firm answer if you restricted yourself to something like standard 'C' or 'C++' - the size of data storage, pointers, etc, is all terribly implementation dependant.
It honestly depends on the language, because managed languages like C# and Java or Scripting languages like JavaScript, Python, or PHP are locked in to their current methodology and to get started and to do anything beyond the advanced stuff there is not much to worry about.
But my guess is that you are asking about languages like C++, C, and other lower level languages.
The biggest thing you have to worry about is the size of things, because in the 32-bit world you are limited to the power of 2^32 however in the 64-bit world things get bigger 2^64.
With 64-bit you have a larger space for memory and storage in RAM, and you can compute larger numbers. However if you know you are compiling for both 32 and 64, you need to make sure to limit your expectations of the system to the 32-bit world and limitations of buffers and numbers.
In C (and maybe C++) always remember to use the sizeof operator when calculating buffer sizes for malloc. This way you will write more portable code anyway, and this will automatically take 64bit datatypes into account.
In most cases the only thing you have to do is just compile your code for both platforms. (And that's assuming that you're using a compiled language; if it's not, then you probably don't need to worry about anything.)
The only thing I can think of that might cause problems is assuming the size of data types, which is something you probably shouldn't be doing anyway. And of course anything written in assembly is going to cause problems.
Keep in mind that many compilers choose the size of integer based on the underlying architecture, given that the "int" should be the fastest number manipulator in the system (according to some theories).
This is why so many programmers use typedefs for their most portable programs - if you want your code to work on everything from 8 bit processors up to 64 bit processors you need to recognize that, in C anyway, int is not rigidly defined.
Pointers are another area to be careful - don't use a long, or long long, or any specific type if you are fiddling with the numeric value of the pointer - use the proper construct, which, unfortunately, varies from compiler to compiler (which is why you have a separate typedef.h file for each compiler you use).
-Adam Davis