On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 12:33 +0100, alex wrote:
> You might have a language that isn't Turing complete, but still allows
> interesting abstractions, and call that live coding. I'm not sure if
> I'd agree or not, that would be an interesting route to follow but for
> now I think the turing-completeness is important.
Interesting list of non turing complete languages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness
It includes regular expressions and context free grammars...
I think this is a bit of an arbitrary distinction too, but thats
probably because a lot of my stuff treads close to this line ;)
cheers,
dave
Received on Mon Oct 05 2009 - 12:27:12 BST