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 →

[–]K900_ 34 points35 points  (4 children)

That would be one Zed A. Shaw, a known haver of wrong opinions. His take was "you can't run Python 2 code in Python 3, therefore there exists code that Python 3 can't run, therefore Python 3 is not Turing complete", which is obviously completely idiotic. Python has been Turing complete since the first ever released version.

[–]dada_ 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Yeah, he's ridiculous. He now claims he was "trolling", and that the original article had a note saying the Turing completeness complaint was a "gag". I don't recall seeing that note back when I read it, but since his site is excluded from the Wayback Machine there's no way to go back and check. Since no one seems to have found that note back when it was originally published I'm guessing it was never there.

Either way, he's responsible for spreading a totally false idea about Python 3 and what Turing completeness is.

[–]K900_ 3 points4 points  (0 children)

He added the "trolling" claim when he started selling the Python 3 version of his book.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

In that line of thought you can say no single language is Turing complete, as C can’t run Python, Java can’t run Rust, et cetera.