At 02:20 PM 5/7/99 -0400, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote:
>I'd like to take this argument one step further. It might well be possible
>with existing technology to write a computerprogram that converted a plain
>English description of an algorithm into C. Natural language understanding
>programs do best with a limited vocabulary and clear semantics, as would be
>the case here.
As you suggest, this is already possible, although you might
need a somewhat repetitive style. Previously I've seen
crypto algorithms in C translated (mechanically) into english
prose. Just for yucks, someone could read the english prose into
a speach-recognizer hooked into a deprosifying (code extraction) and
compiling environment. Useful for the blind, I expect.
Any *sufficiently lucid* prose explanation is readily turned
into code. I once implemented Blowfish from Schneier's Dr. Dobbs'
article; with the exception that I used the wrong endian Pi file,
my code was correct. Bruce writes well, which is to say, clearly,
albeit concisely.
Note that you can buy dead-tree books about how to make
full-auto sears for various rifles.. and you can do so
with the full protection of the constitution. Bits can never
harm anyone; only people harm people. That is what the 1st A
is about. Failure to understand/implement this should be grounds for
impeachment in the US.
David Honig
