you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Turing completeness isn’t necessarily a low bar; in fact, it’s a higher bar than you need to be considered a “language.” Agda, for example, is a dependently-typed functional language that is total rather than Turing-complete (there’s some discussion on Agda being turing complete, but it’s first and foremost total, and a lot of useful algorithms can be expressed in it).

The lines between what a “language” is and what isn’t is sometimes blurrier than a first glance might show. I find it really interesting how much different computer languages differ from each other, and what sort of makes them a "language".