3 ms·

Because it's not necessary. If a Turing-complete programming language can't be expressive enough without a Turing-complete metalanguage, then it's probably not

by dvt 10y ago

Because it's not necessary. If a Turing-complete programming language can't be expressive enough without a Turing-complete metalanguage, then it's probably not designed very well. What next? Will we start seeing meta-metalanguages because, hey, it makes compilation less error-prone (but adds something we'll call pre-compilation)?

clock_tower 10y ago
I think C/C++ #ifdefs could qualify as a meta-meta-language. I've certainly found that there are situations where static analysis can't comprehend C++ without pre-compilation...
- dvt 10y ago
  Yes, I think you're right, actually. I doubt the C/C++ pre-processor is Turing-complete, though.
  - jepler 10y ago
    "yes-ish" it is turing complete http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3136686/is-the-c99-preprocessor-turing-complete http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3136686/is-the-c99-prepro... (read the second answer, not the accepted answer)
    - dvt 10y ago
      Wow, TIL. Good find!
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
pcwalton 10y ago
> If a Turing-complete programming language can't be expressive enough without a Turing-complete metalanguage, then it's probably not designed very well. What is your proposed alternative to the Paterson conditions (described in the top comment)?