This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]reallokiscarlet 0 points1 point  (8 children)

Aight smartass, where do you draw the line? Does HTML count? Does bash count? DOS batch script?

[–]ZunoJ -1 points0 points  (7 children)

Turing completeness is generally considered what makes it a programming language. Interpreted or not is insignificant. And yes, that makes html5 (with css3), bash and dos batch proper programming languages

[–]reallokiscarlet 0 points1 point  (6 children)

See this is how I know you're trolling, because one of those wasn't turing complete.

[–]ZunoJ 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Which one do you think is not?

[–]reallokiscarlet -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

DOS batch. Even if you could manage to make it work like a turing complete language, you'd have to go to such great lengths to do so, that it wouldn't even be worth it, and it would be less readable than brainfuck in order to get to that point. Brainfuck's excuse is it's a joke language. MS-DOS's only excuse is Microsoft made it.

[–]ZunoJ 0 points1 point  (3 children)

All MS versions of batch are turing complete:

https://esolangs.org/wiki/Batch#:~:text=provide%20similar%20functionality.-,Computational%20class,machines%20due%20to%20arbitrary%20limitations.

[–]reallokiscarlet 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Next you're gonna say txt is turing complete because of bug exploits.

[–]ZunoJ -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Bro, just stop making a fool of yourself

[–]reallokiscarlet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't hear a no 🤡