Got a Doubt ! Wanting for your Help ! Plz make it ASAP !

rusi rustompmody at gmail.com
Wed Nov 27 15:37:11 CET 2013


On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 7:39:37 PM UTC+5:30, Larry wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Paul Rudin  wrote:
> > rusi  writes:
> >> Propositionally: All languages are equal -- Turing complete
> > As an aside, not all languages are Turing complete. For example Charity
> > is a language with the property that programs are guaranteed to
> > terminate.

> How about INTERCAL?

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercal

Oh its Turing complete alright:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercal#Details

It would be more apt to say that programmers use dozens of 'languages'
(in the sense of notation) that are very far up/down from Turing
equivalent. eg

- regular expressions and parsing tools like yacc are less than Turing
  equivalent
- specification langauages like Z/UML are more powerful than Turing
  machines in that one can specify unimplementable programs

So when I say 'language' strictly I should say 'programming language'

If (something like) Charity succeeds *as a programming language* then
it will be a significant change in how we view programming.  As a thought experiment that is interesting but I would be skeptical…



More information about the Python-list mailing list