On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 07:47:16AM +1100, Ross Bencina wrote:
> On 13/01/2013 6:39 AM, David Barbour wrote:
> >I would ask a question in return: who should be a programmer? Are
> >user interfaces not, in many formal senses, live programming in a
> >problem/domain specific languages?
>
> In general no. Most user interfaces are not, in any formal sense,
> programming languages.
>
> To be a programming language you need Turing completeness.
While I agree with the general sentiment you are expressing here I
think there are some programming languages that are -intentionally-
not Turing-complete. These are used to program simple devices like
remote controls. The reason for that was that if it is not needed
being Turing-complete makes a system needlessly hard to analyse and
prove correctness.
Or, at least that is what I think I read once some time ago. Not
particularly relevant but interesting still.
Yours,
Kas.
Received on Sat Jan 12 2013 - 21:20:05 GMT