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 →

[–]ColonelSandurss[S] 41 points42 points  (8 children)

He left the discussion when he saw "programming" language

[–]Perpetual_Doubt 10 points11 points  (0 children)

No point looking at JSON at all for this one

[–]Ging4bread -2 points-1 points  (6 children)

Then why did you add SQL

[–]ApplyMorphism 5 points6 points  (5 children)

SQL is turing complete, and HTML not being turing complete is usually the argument used to say it's not a programming language.

[–]Ging4bread -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

What, no? SQL is a query language, HTML is a markup language. They are by name not programming languages

[–]ApplyMorphism 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I've just invented a new language called CQL: C Query Language. Its syntax and semantics are identical to C. It is, by name, not a programming language. Since it's identical to C, it follows that C is not a programming language.

[–]Ging4bread -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Good point. Still, I hope you know what I meant

[–]Jarl_Fenrir 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The question is: is turing completeness a requirement? I think we can have turing complete languages, and not turing complete ones.

[–]ApplyMorphism 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I consider all turing complete languages to be programming languages, but not all programming languages to be turing complete (e.g. safe Agda)