5 ms·

How about this for an intrinsic difference: one language is capable of performing arbitrary computations (it's Turing complete), and the other is not?

by eurleif 11y ago

halosghost 11y ago
The only problem with that is that, recently, there has been a resurgence of the notion of sub-turing complete languages as still being valid programming pursuits. E.g., see Coq. I have not really come down on one side or the other (mainly because I do not have the requisite experience and have not yet had the time to research the question thoroughly enough to form a well-founded opinion). But, that programming languages must be Turing complete is not necessarily a given.
- brudgers 11y ago
  The classification of Coq versus HTML is like that of classifying people as expats versus migrants, it reflects more upon the affinity of the person classifying for what is being classified than upon any objective distinction. Computer Scientists use Coq and Web Designers use HTML. Denying HTML is a programming language is a mechanism for denying a particular form of legitimacy to a particular cluster of activities. It's not like you're average Java programmer could actually prove that Java is Turing Complete in polynomial time. Most people take it on authority that C is Turing Complete, and that's reasonable because that's the way science largely works.
  - halosghost 11y ago
    It feels like you may have misunderstood my purpose. My point was not that HTML should be denigrated from the status of programming language where Coq is a programming language. My point was that the line is blurry (I think you and I agree on this), and that it is not a given that a “programming language” is necessarily Turing complete.
    - brudgers 11y ago
      It feels like you may have considered my reply an argument rather than a riff on your observation that Coq gets props as a programming language. When I see a programming language that comes with an infinite tape, I'll take the idea of Turing Completeness as a necessary condition for a programming language more seriously. My point is that excluding HTML from the family of programming languages is a social distinction. And mentioning Turing Completeness is usually a way of cutting off conversation not opening it up.
      - halosghost 11y ago
        Ahh, I must have misread; it seems you and I are on exactly the same page :)
brudgers 11y ago
(print "Hello World") Where is the Turing Completeness? Or more specifically how does the it express Turing Completeness any more or less than: <p>Hello World</p> It is only by resorting to metaphysics that one can claim that one is a program and the other isn't despite both producing the output Hello World.
- eurleif 11y ago
  If "looking at the properties of the language they are written in" counts as "metaphysics", then sure, I guess we have to employ metaphysics. So what?
  - BraveNewCurency 11y ago
    That was a terrible example. Try calculating PI with HTML.
    - brudgers 11y ago
      A fast HTML implementation for the first 1,000,000 digits: <a href="http://www.piday.org/million/">π</a> Takes advantage of memoization and lazy evaluation.

How about this for an intrinsic difference: one language is capable of performing arbitrary computations (it's Turing complete), and the other is not?

by eurleif 11y ago

How about this for an intrinsic difference: one language is capable of performing arbitrary computations (it's Turing complete), and the other is not?

halosghost 11y ago

The only problem with that is that, recently, there has been a resurgence of the notion of sub-turing complete languages as still being valid programming pursuits. E.g., see Coq. I have not really come down on one side or the other (mainly because I do not have the requisite experience and have not yet had the time to research the question thoroughly enough to form a well-founded opinion). But, that programming languages must be Turing complete is not necessarily a given.

brudgers 11y ago
The classification of Coq versus HTML is like that of classifying people as expats versus migrants, it reflects more upon the affinity of the person classifying for what is being classified than upon any objective distinction. Computer Scientists use Coq and Web Designers use HTML. Denying HTML is a programming language is a mechanism for denying a particular form of legitimacy to a particular cluster of activities. It's not like you're average Java programmer could actually prove that Java is Turing Complete in polynomial time. Most people take it on authority that C is Turing Complete, and that's reasonable because that's the way science largely works.
- halosghost 11y ago
  It feels like you may have misunderstood my purpose. My point was not that HTML should be denigrated from the status of programming language where Coq is a programming language. My point was that the line is blurry (I think you and I agree on this), and that it is not a given that a “programming language” is necessarily Turing complete.
  - brudgers 11y ago
    It feels like you may have considered my reply an argument rather than a riff on your observation that Coq gets props as a programming language. When I see a programming language that comes with an infinite tape, I'll take the idea of Turing Completeness as a necessary condition for a programming language more seriously. My point is that excluding HTML from the family of programming languages is a social distinction. And mentioning Turing Completeness is usually a way of cutting off conversation not opening it up.
    - halosghost 11y ago
      Ahh, I must have misread; it seems you and I are on exactly the same page :)

brudgers 11y ago

(print "Hello World") Where is the Turing Completeness? Or more specifically how does the it express Turing Completeness any more or less than: <p>Hello World</p> It is only by resorting to metaphysics that one can claim that one is a program and the other isn't despite both producing the output Hello World.

eurleif 11y ago
If "looking at the properties of the language they are written in" counts as "metaphysics", then sure, I guess we have to employ metaphysics. So what?
- BraveNewCurency 11y ago
  That was a terrible example. Try calculating PI with HTML.
  - brudgers 11y ago
    A fast HTML implementation for the first 1,000,000 digits: <a href="http://www.piday.org/million/">π</a> Takes advantage of memoization and lazy evaluation.