3 ms·

> and there are in fact examples of non-TC languages, if only educational Sure, SQL is only educational or not programming. There seems to be a lot of program

by maweki 4y ago

> and there are in fact examples of non-TC languages, if only educational Sure, SQL is only educational or not programming. There seems to be a lot of programming going on in the world generating a lot of value which you wouldn't recognize as such. Excel uses a terminating (and therefore not computationally complete) dataflow-based evaluation model but it's in no case programming. Are you sure? I'd think, telling a computer "if you recognize a pattern described as such, replace it with so and so", just regex with replacement, sounds very much like programming to me. Very weird where you draw the line.

JadeNB 4y ago
> Sure, SQL is only educational or not programming. > There seems to be a lot of programming going on in the world generating a lot of value which you wouldn't recognize as such. Excel uses a terminating (and therefore not computationally complete) dataflow-based evaluation model but it's in no case programming. Are you sure? I think this is not the most charitable reading of your parent. You're taking it as if they definitively rejected SQL and Excel as programming languages and arguing from that, rather than that maybe they didn't think of them. I think it would have been easy to make the case for SQL, Excel, and even (ir)regexes as programming languages without taking a sarcastic tone. For example: > I'd think, telling a computer "if you recognize a pattern described as such, replace it with so and so", just regex with replacement, sounds very much like programming to me. Very weird where you draw the line. could easily have asked instead, where do you draw the line?—which would surely be a more interesting discussion.
- maweki 4y ago
  > could easily have asked instead, where do you draw the line? The commenter made that quite clear. Using a computational model that's not complete can not be called "programming" in any real-world context. Which is weird. This kinda implies that, whenever I forbid myself to write my Python-Code without While-loops or recursion, I'm not programming. The traditional definitions of programming are often along the lines of instructing a machine to perform certain tasks.
  - Jorengarenar 4y ago
    Literally the first thing I wrote is that there is no requirement a programming language needs to be Turing-Complete.
Jorengarenar 4y ago
>Sure, SQL is only educational or not programming. Last time I checked SQL was proven to be Turing-Complete? While Excel's formula language wasn't always TC, the program as a whole, I believe, was since the very beginning. >telling a computer "if you recognize a pattern described as such, replace it with so and so", just regex with replacement, sounds very much like programming to me. I think by adding "if X then replace" capability we already escaped outside the bounds of Type-3 grammar, i.e. it's not a regular expression anymore (despite being build upon one).
- maweki 4y ago
  > Last time I checked SQL was proven to be Turing-Complete? Without recursive CTEs, it isn't. And there's nothing much to prove about that. Finite SQL statements on finite databases always terminate and it's therefore not computationally complete.
  - Jorengarenar 4y ago
    Indeed, I stand corrected. Older standards of SQL show that among DSLs we can (or at least could) find non-TC programming languages in the wild.

by maweki 4y ago

JadeNB 4y ago

> Sure, SQL is only educational or not programming. > There seems to be a lot of programming going on in the world generating a lot of value which you wouldn't recognize as such. Excel uses a terminating (and therefore not computationally complete) dataflow-based evaluation model but it's in no case programming. Are you sure? I think this is not the most charitable reading of your parent. You're taking it as if they definitively rejected SQL and Excel as programming languages and arguing from that, rather than that maybe they didn't think of them. I think it would have been easy to make the case for SQL, Excel, and even (ir)regexes as programming languages without taking a sarcastic tone. For example: > I'd think, telling a computer "if you recognize a pattern described as such, replace it with so and so", just regex with replacement, sounds very much like programming to me. Very weird where you draw the line. could easily have asked instead, where do you draw the line?—which would surely be a more interesting discussion.

maweki 4y ago
> could easily have asked instead, where do you draw the line? The commenter made that quite clear. Using a computational model that's not complete can not be called "programming" in any real-world context. Which is weird. This kinda implies that, whenever I forbid myself to write my Python-Code without While-loops or recursion, I'm not programming. The traditional definitions of programming are often along the lines of instructing a machine to perform certain tasks.
- Jorengarenar 4y ago
  Literally the first thing I wrote is that there is no requirement a programming language needs to be Turing-Complete.

Jorengarenar 4y ago

>Sure, SQL is only educational or not programming. Last time I checked SQL was proven to be Turing-Complete? While Excel's formula language wasn't always TC, the program as a whole, I believe, was since the very beginning. >telling a computer "if you recognize a pattern described as such, replace it with so and so", just regex with replacement, sounds very much like programming to me. I think by adding "if X then replace" capability we already escaped outside the bounds of Type-3 grammar, i.e. it's not a regular expression anymore (despite being build upon one).

maweki 4y ago
> Last time I checked SQL was proven to be Turing-Complete? Without recursive CTEs, it isn't. And there's nothing much to prove about that. Finite SQL statements on finite databases always terminate and it's therefore not computationally complete.
- Jorengarenar 4y ago
  Indeed, I stand corrected. Older standards of SQL show that among DSLs we can (or at least could) find non-TC programming languages in the wild.