3 ms·
Interesting, so do you avoid describing one programming language as being "more powerful" than another? They're all Turing complete, after all... it's just a qu
by clucas 4y ago
Interesting, so do you avoid describing one programming language as being "more powerful" than another? They're all Turing complete, after all... it's just a question of how fast you can develop in one, right?
- zasdffaa 4y agoGood question, 'power' I reserve for turing completeness (some aren't, such as SQL before recursive CTEs were added, and... well, here's a list https://iq.opengenus.org/non-turing-complete-programming-languages/ https://iq.opengenus.org/non-turing-complete-programming-lan...) For "how much crap do I have to write to get it to do something", I call that expressivity. Scala is more expressive than fractran (I guess...).
- clucas 4y agoSounds like you are consistent with your usage of terms, and I understand the logic and the motivation. I would just caution that it's fairly idiosyncratic - plenty of people out there don't use the word "power" the way you do. For example, here is how Paul Graham talks about the "power" of programming languages: http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html Just saying, as consistent as your definitions are internally, being too rigid about it may hinder your ability to communicate with others in the field. Good luck buddy <3
- zasdffaa 4y agoThoughtful reply and it is much appreciated dude, take care!
- robertlagrant 4y agoWhat's the case for power equals Turing completeness over power equals speed of development?