Hm I also made a taxonomy of 5 categories of config languages, which is a bit different Survey of Config Languages https://github.com/oils-for-unix/oils/wiki/S

Hm I also made a taxonomy of 5 categories of config languages, which is a bit different Survey of Config Languages https://github.com/oils-for-unix/oils/wiki/Survey-of-Config-Languages https://github.com/oils-for-unix/oils/wiki/Survey-of-Config-... Languages for String Data Languages for Typed Data Programmable String-ish Languages Programmable Typed Data Internal DSLs in General Purpose Languages Their taxonomy is: String in a File A List Nested Data Structures Total Programming Languages Full Programming Language So the last category (#5) is the same, the first one is different (they start with plain files), and the middle is a bit different. FWIW I don’t think “Total” is useful – for example, take Starlark … The more salient things about Starlark are that it is restricted to evaluate very fast in parallel, and it has no I/O to the external world. IMO it has nothing to do with Turing completeness. Related threads on the “total” issue: https://lobste.rs/s/dyqczr/find_mkdir_is_turing_complete https://lobste.rs/s/dyqczr/find_mkdir_is_turing_complete https://lobste.rs/s/gcfdnn/why_dhall_advertises_absence_turing https://lobste.rs/s/gcfdnn/why_dhall_advertises_absence_turi...