4 ms·

I'm not defending all of Shaw's ridiculous critiques of Python 3, but the Turing-complete thing was a joke. The conversation, IIRC, was something like this: Z

by fnovd 9y ago

I'm not defending all of Shaw's ridiculous critiques of Python 3, but the Turing-complete thing was a joke. The conversation, IIRC, was something like this: ZS: Why can't I import or translate Python2 into Python3? P3: That would be a technically challenging thing to do. ZS: But surely it is technically possible, even if it is pragmatically unfeasible? P3: We can't do it. ZS: OK, Python 3 must be Turing-incomplete, ha ha ha! source: https://learnpythonthehardway.org/book/nopython3.html https://learnpythonthehardway.org/book/nopython3.html

geofft 9y ago
It was definitely not interpreted as a joke by the target audience (people who are new to programming, let alone to the idea of Turing-completeness) - e.g., the third Google result for 'zed shaw turing' is a Reddit thread containing this comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/shittyprogramming/comments/5ejbr9/proof_that_python_3_is_not_turing_complete/dacxlhn/ https://www.reddit.com/r/shittyprogramming/comments/5ejbr9/p... So, I don't know if he was serious and then later edited that page to say it was a joke, or if he meant it as a joke and intended to misteach beginners, or if he meant it as a joke and did not realize he was misteaching beginners, but in all three of those cases, I don't see why he's a person worth listening to, especially on the subject of training programmers.