Skip to main content
Code Golf

Return to Answer

subtract pejorative
Source Link
Scott Leadley
Scott Leadley
  • 489
  • 2
  • 7

Clearly a general purpose programming language -
Turing equivalence is sufficient to decide it's a programming language, whether well-defined (C, Python, Haskell, etc.) or ad-hoc (e.g., bash + Linux utilities, PowerShell + Windows utilities, etc.).

AnnoyingUseful exceptions -
Until I read the Wikipedia article on Turing completeness, I'd never heard of useful Turing incomplete programming languages before. I, and I think most people reading PP&CG, would accept something like Charity as a programming language.

  • SQL
  • state machine languages, including all flavors of regex without code injection
  • Until I read the Wikipedia article on Turing completeness, I'd never heard of useful almost Turing-complete programming languages before. I, and I think most people reading PP&CG, would accept something like Charity as a programming language.

Clearly not a general purpose programming language -
No ability to construct a branch and/or a loop control structure. This definition is woefully incomplete, e.g. it doesn't rule out grep or anything using just regex'es, which I don't thinksince the breadth of as complete programming languagesstate manipulation is also an issue.

Clearly a programming language -
Turing equivalence is sufficient to decide it's a programming language, whether well-defined (C, Python, Haskell, etc.) or ad-hoc (e.g., bash + Linux utilities, PowerShell + Windows utilities, etc.).

Annoying exceptions -
Until I read the Wikipedia article on Turing completeness, I'd never heard of useful Turing incomplete programming languages before. I, and I think most people reading PP&CG, would accept something like Charity as a programming language.

Clearly not a general purpose programming language -
No ability to construct a branch and/or a loop control structure. This definition is woefully incomplete, e.g. it doesn't rule out grep or anything using just regex'es, which I don't think of as complete programming languages.

Clearly a general purpose programming language -
Turing equivalence is sufficient to decide it's a programming language, whether well-defined (C, Python, Haskell, etc.) or ad-hoc (e.g., bash + Linux utilities, PowerShell + Windows utilities, etc.).

Useful exceptions -

  • SQL
  • state machine languages, including all flavors of regex without code injection
  • Until I read the Wikipedia article on Turing completeness, I'd never heard of useful almost Turing-complete programming languages before. I, and I think most people reading PP&CG, would accept something like Charity as a programming language.

Clearly not a general purpose programming language -
No ability to construct a branch and/or a loop control structure. This definition is woefully incomplete, since the breadth of state manipulation is also an issue.

add weasel words
Source Link
Scott Leadley
Scott Leadley
  • 489
  • 2
  • 7

Clearly a programming language -
Turing equivalence is sufficient to decide it's a programming language, whether well-defined (C, Python, Haskell, etc.) or ad-hoc (e.g., bash + Linux utilities, PowerShell + Windows utilities, etc.).

Annoying exceptions -
Until I read the Wikipedia article on Turing completeness, I'd never heard of useful Turing incomplete programming languages before. I, and I think most people reading PP&CG, would accept something like Charity as a programming language.

Clearly not a general purpose programming language -
No ability to construct a branch and/or a loop control structure. This definition is woefully incomplete, e.g. it doesn't rule out grep or anything using just regex'es, which I don't think of as complete programming languages.

Clearly a programming language -
Turing equivalence is sufficient to decide it's a programming language, whether well-defined (C, Python, Haskell, etc.) or ad-hoc (e.g., bash + Linux utilities, PowerShell + Windows utilities, etc.).

Annoying exceptions -
Until I read the Wikipedia article on Turing completeness, I'd never heard of useful Turing incomplete programming languages before. I, and I think most people reading PP&CG, would accept something like Charity as a programming language.

Clearly not a programming language -
No ability to construct a branch and/or a loop control structure. This definition is woefully incomplete, e.g. it doesn't rule out grep or anything using just regex'es, which I don't think of as complete programming languages.

Clearly a programming language -
Turing equivalence is sufficient to decide it's a programming language, whether well-defined (C, Python, Haskell, etc.) or ad-hoc (e.g., bash + Linux utilities, PowerShell + Windows utilities, etc.).

Annoying exceptions -
Until I read the Wikipedia article on Turing completeness, I'd never heard of useful Turing incomplete programming languages before. I, and I think most people reading PP&CG, would accept something like Charity as a programming language.

Clearly not a general purpose programming language -
No ability to construct a branch and/or a loop control structure. This definition is woefully incomplete, e.g. it doesn't rule out grep or anything using just regex'es, which I don't think of as complete programming languages.

Source Link
Scott Leadley
Scott Leadley
  • 489
  • 2
  • 7

Clearly a programming language -
Turing equivalence is sufficient to decide it's a programming language, whether well-defined (C, Python, Haskell, etc.) or ad-hoc (e.g., bash + Linux utilities, PowerShell + Windows utilities, etc.).

Annoying exceptions -
Until I read the Wikipedia article on Turing completeness, I'd never heard of useful Turing incomplete programming languages before. I, and I think most people reading PP&CG, would accept something like Charity as a programming language.

Clearly not a programming language -
No ability to construct a branch and/or a loop control structure. This definition is woefully incomplete, e.g. it doesn't rule out grep or anything using just regex'es, which I don't think of as complete programming languages.