Quote:
|
That doesn't mean there aren't advantages to using the chainsaw over the rock, and I suspect that is what reggaeton_king meant by "power".
|
Well, I'd say that more has to do with features rather than actual computation power in this instance. They have equivilant power (at least if you look at it from a theoretical point of view, such as turing machines), like I said, each has features that facilitate the process of doing what you do, I'd rather say that Java might have more advanced features in some respects, but not a greater amount of overall 'computation power.'
Quote:
|
Really? I highly doubt that you really could.
|
Well, you really can.
Quote:
|
Also, I suggest you really look more into Java's features and then look at Visual BASIC's features. Don't rely on what your friends tell you.
|
It's one thing to listen to what your friends say, and a completely different thing to listen what has been shown for over half a century. Like I said, look into
turing completeness, in fact, if you doubt that you could write any INTERCAL equivilant program of, say, Java, look at
Wikipedia, it addresses that statement. Java, and INTERCAL (no matter how odd and esoteric it is,) are both turing-complete (as with many mainstream languages,) if you look at them that way, they all have an equal amount of power. Features are quite different from overall the amount of power.