Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
If you're going to define a "programming language" by its Turing Completeness...
Please do so in order to expand what a programming language can be, not to constrain it! And please don't attach prestige/gatekeeping to the term!
We seem to have fixated onto textual procedural languages for the past... Is it half-a-century now?
Of course then there's the question is what exactly is a program, but pretty sure finite automata can fit.
And personally I'd exclude static languages like html/xml/json/… that don't really do any actions/processing, or at least aren't supposed to unless your parser is designed broken (cf. billion laughs).
Because turing completeness means halting problem.
@lanodan You know...
It complicates standardization at times, but CSS specifically avoids introducing any loop constructs! Because browsers need to ensure relayout is fast!
On the otherhand you may have heard that HTML/CSS is Turing Complete. I quibble a bit on those proofs.
@lanodan Or another example I like: There's a concept for Functional Programming languages which caps algorithmic complexity to O(n*log n).
That'd still cover most general-purposes uses!
@lanodan Yeah that's my quibble. These proofs rely on you acting like Stanley from that videogame.
Interesting program, but inferior to pen & paper with printed instructions.