> Turing completeness dictates that any Turing complete language is equivalent to any other Turing complete language. Sorry to pick on you, but this is a good

> Turing completeness dictates that any Turing complete language is equivalent to any other Turing complete language. Sorry to pick on you, but this is a good example of misuse of this fact in an argument where it's not really relevant. Turing-completeness only relates to functions that take some string as input as produce a string as output (since that's all the turing machine model can do). In contrast, real-world programming languages interact with a machine or operating system, and not all languages provide the same interfaces or even run on the same machines. I can easily implement a Turing-complete language whose only allowed system calls are reading from stdin and writing to stdout. Despite being Turing-complete, it will never be able to spawn threads, connect to a network socket, or even allocate memory on the heap.