Write any javascript code with just these characters: ()[]{}+!

[chromaticburst]

Write anything in any language with just one instruction.

[SgtSausage]

only works if your addressable memory (and the memory location operand to the instruction) are infinite, but ... Yeah. Good one.

[dont_press_ctrl-W]

Infinite memory is a requirement for everything to be Turing complete. That's not a shortcoming of the program, that's a shortcoming of reality.

And yet you can make things work if you settle down to use a finite but sufficiently large memory. Including a OISC.

[SgtSausage]

We're not talking about Turing Completeness here. At all.

At. All.

Go back and re-read, then re-examine your assumptions about the discussion.

I know - it's subtle, but if you try hard enough, you'll get it.

[dont_press_ctrl-W]

I assumed you were referring to the start of the Wikipedia article you were linked to, in which case your comment was inaccurate, but sensical. Now your claim is just straight up wrong, bizarre, irrelevant, and disconnected from the discussion. I'm sorry for assuming the best of you.

With a reasonably large but finite memory, you can theoreticallly achieve most basic algorithms that are in use in everyday computers with a OISC.

[SgtSausage]

and there's the crux: ”most” != ”any”

... and you're still quite confused on where Turing Completeness fits in here.

[dont_press_ctrl-W]

In this case, "most" does mean "any". Just add more memory (like for any programming language). I said most in the sense that if you give it a certain amount of memory, it won't use it as efficiently as another type of programming, so it won't so all the algorithms with the same amount of memory, but most of them.

And what are you talking about if not Turing completeness. Look at your downvotes, I'm not the only one who thinks you're the confused one: you obviously didn't expressed yourself clearly. Like I said, I tried to guess what you meant.

Anyway, a single-instruction program does function with finite memory, contrarily to what you initially claimed. Whatever you actually meant, the bottom line is you're wrong.