Goddamnit Paul Graham [IHBT]

http://www.paulgraham.com/hundred.html

Presumably many libraries will be for domains that don't even exist yet. If SETI@home works, for example, we'll need libraries for communicating with aliens. Unless of course they are sufficiently advanced that they already communicate in XML.

Good one, Paul Graham. You had me fooled for a good while there.

>>5
There's nothing wrong with the statement, it refers to the fact that all programming languages are equivalent in terms of what they can compute with infinite time and memory, and equally as powerful as turing machine with that respect.  In addition, a Turing machine can act as a simulator for another Turing machine, I leave the proof as an exercise for the reader.

>>6
Yes, with infinite time and memory. One of the things I agree with Paul on, is that "who'd want to program a Turing machine?". Turing completeness is a bullshit argument and anyone who disagrees with me, clearly doesn't spend enough time using an assembly language.
How about this one
according to this philosophy, the best "programming language" is an bunch of fucking NAND gates.
This is just an extension of the previous argument, and it too is a load of shit. If we continue down the layers of abstraction: a NAND gate can be implemented with 4 transistors. Are transistors the best programming language? And a transistor can be implemented with less than 10 silicon atoms. Is doped silicon the best programming language? Carry on ad absurdum.