2 ms·

"You need straightforward parsing, that is easy to standardize and implement, with some guarantees about bounded execution. " Surely you can find a general pur

• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• kortex 5y ago
  General purpose languages like being turning complete, not as a main goal per se, but it's hard to be expressive and not be TC. TC means you can't statically determine execution behavior (halting problem). There's not a lot of things in this category. Some that come to mind are Cue and Dhall. Hashicorp HCL2 might also be, but I don't know if they are turning-complete off the top of my head. Some blog suggests it actually is TC, but I cannot corroborate. Starlark/bazel is TC. You can add Berkeley Packet Filters and BLooP to the list of TI languages: https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-example-of-a-Turing-incomplete-language https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-example-of-a-Turing-incompl... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28915655 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28915655 https://dhall-lang.org/# https://dhall-lang.org/# https://njoseph.me/mediawiki/DevOps/Terraform https://njoseph.me/mediawiki/DevOps/Terraform
  • jvolkman 5y ago
    I believe Starlark being turing-complete would be a bug. The language takes steps to avoid it by disallowing recursion and only allowing iteration over finite sequences.