4 ms·
Turing completeness in something designed to be domain specific is a sign of bloat and is a sort of smell. It's a sign of a design taken so far that it now has
by crimsonalucard 7y ago
Turing completeness in something designed to be domain specific is a sign of bloat and is a sort of smell. It's a sign of a design taken so far that it now has the capability to compute anything when in all intents and purposes it's design is domain specific.
One other example of this is css. Did you know css is Turing complete?
Note that most programming languages are Turing complete because that is the domain: To express every possible computation in the language, and thus in these cases Turing completeness is not a design smell.
- hannasanarion 7y agoCSS is not turing complete. CSS can do arithmetic, but it has no way to designate routines or repeat its own behavior.
- crimsonalucard 7y agoYou are not categorically wrong because I missed some semantics in my statements. However the essence of what your saying is incorrect. Let me rephrase more specifically: CSS3 + HTML5 is turing complete. Since CSS is always used in the context of HTML I left that out, but rigor is important! source: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2497146/is-css-turing-complete https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2497146/is-css-turing-co... Note that this happened with the later versions of CSS indicating that the specification became turing complete after years and years of tacking on features. This is the pattern of bloat accumulating over time.