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… -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
