> My point is that turing-completeness is not necessarily a desirable aspect of a language. Ah, okay, I see. > For some use-cases, like seting up a mainloop,

> My point is that turing-completeness is not necessarily a desirable aspect of a language. Ah, okay, I see. > For some use-cases, like seting up a mainloop, you need an escape hatch because that mainloop is not going to be total. But not every program needs that. Hmm, I would argue that in practice, nearly all programs will need that, because they're either potentially non-terminating (let's call this "type 1") or have a runtime with a bound which is not determined by any of its inputs ("type 2"). Examples for type 1 include firmware, kernels, drivers, database engines, any kind of server, all programs with a GUI, all REPLs, and many Unix-style utilities that process or generate streams (thing grep, cat, sed, dd). Examples for type 2 include all programs with non-blocking IO (because even if the input and output are known to be bounded, the number of read/write calls is potentially unbounded) and most programs which take a file name as input (because the file size is not part of the program's input). That doesn't leave many exceptions. I admit, however, that in most cases you could structure your program so that it has a non-total mainloop which exclusively calls proven total functions. But I don't think this is very useful, because even in safety-relevant, hard real-time contexts, termination is not sufficient, but termination within a certain timespan.