5 ms·
Right, but isn't it a problem that a quine also requires the information contained in the language's compiler/interpreter to be fully meaningful? This would be
by minism 2y ago
Right, but isn't it a problem that a quine also requires the information contained in the language's compiler/interpreter to be fully meaningful? This would be "outside the universe" so to speak.
- akira2501 2y agoCompilers are just translators. Which is why it's not too hard to write a compiler in the language that the compiler itself implements. An assembly quine is an odd thing to even ponder.
- nonameiguess 2y agoSort of. The very first compiled binary of any new language has to first be written in a language that already has a compiler, and the very first compiler of any high-level language at all had to be written in assembler. Ultimately, if you can't write a Quine directly in logic gates, which you can't because no microprocessor can output another microprocessor, you need something external to the "universe" of the language.
- titzer 2y ago> has to first be written in a language that already has a compiler You only need an interpreter for that language.
- titzer 2y agoA minimal quine just prints itself out as "source" code. You can choose the source language to be whatever you like, such as a minimal Turing complete combinator. So all you need is an interpreter for the base level, which could be something as simple as Rule 110[1]. It really doesn't matter what Turing-complete language you choose; they can all be implemented in terms of each other, so as soon as you have your quine one language you could as well do it any other. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_110 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_110