I agree with much of what he says, I just pointed out things I don't agree with.
And what's up with the wall of quote? I read the article in full.
On top of what I already said, I add that crediting Lambda Calculus as only the basis of a high-level programming language does not do it justice.
He is giving Turing and Post credit in one paragraph, and taking it away in another. As if like he cannot decide.
More importantly, Turing's approach is completely reduced to adopting "a traditional, reductionist, minimalist, binary view of computing—just like Konrad Zuse". It is not giving even close to the credit deserved. Many of the child parents to my main address to that.
I could not really find anything convincing in those child parents. What exactly is the important contribution of Turing that is not mentioned in the text? Furthermore, the text does not credit "Lambda Calculus as only the basis of a high-level programming language." It says that in 1935, Alonzo Church used it to derive "a corollary / extension of Gödel's result by showing that Hilbert & Ackermann's famous Entscheidungsproblem (decision problem) does not have a general solution." That was the important contribution of Church before Turing proved the same thing in a different way.
And what's up with the wall of quote? I read the article in full.
On top of what I already said, I add that crediting Lambda Calculus as only the basis of a high-level programming language does not do it justice.
He is giving Turing and Post credit in one paragraph, and taking it away in another. As if like he cannot decide.
More importantly, Turing's approach is completely reduced to adopting "a traditional, reductionist, minimalist, binary view of computing—just like Konrad Zuse". It is not giving even close to the credit deserved. Many of the child parents to my main address to that.