Re: Adding support to another scripting language - Mozilla

This is a discussion on Re: Adding support to another scripting language - Mozilla ; From: Gijs Kruitbosch Subject: Re: Adding support to another scripting language >>Just out of curiosity, is it really required for people to use a *turing complete* language? If so, why? IIRC, interpreters can't be written for non-Turing complete languages (although ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Re: Adding support to another scripting language

  1. Re: Adding support to another scripting language


    From: Gijs Kruitbosch
    Subject: Re: Adding support to another scripting language

    >>Just out of curiosity, is it really required for people to use a *turing complete* language? If so, why?<<


    IIRC, interpreters can't be written for non-Turing complete languages (although compilers can be)... so how would you extensions would in such an environment?





  2. Re: Adding support to another scripting language

    eric.jung@yahoo.com wrote:
    > From: Gijs Kruitbosch
    > Subject: Re: Adding support to another scripting language
    >
    >>> Just out of curiosity, is it really required for people to use a *turing complete* language? If so, why?<<

    >
    > IIRC, interpreters can't be written for non-Turing complete languages (although compilers can be)... so how would you extensions would in such an environment?


    Non-Turing-complete languages aren't what I'd call "programming languages".
    They are too severely limited, even if you could conceivably write
    interpreters for "some" of them. Imagine for instance a shell (a command
    interpreter) which, unlike the well-known command.com, cmd.exe, ndos.com,
    4dos.com, 4nt.exe (for Dos/Windows), sh, bash, csh, tcsh, ksh, zsh (for Unix),
    et al., would have no decision structure (not even an "if" statement) and no
    substitution. It would simply execute all commands from top to bottom, passing
    any arguments verbatim. You could call the language of its scripts "a
    language" (you might for instance label it Job Control Language or JCL -- I've
    worked with such on mainframes some decades ago) and it would certainly be
    "interpretable" albeit not very exciting, and I think non-Turing-complete.

    Another couple of "languages" which have their uses, even in browsers, but
    which I would never regard as "programming" languages, are HTML (whose name
    includes L for Language) and CSS.

    Javascript, OTOH, is a "true" programming language; and it is so widespread
    already that it has become some kind of "web standard". Why introduce more
    languages to do what I assume would be essentially the same thing, thus
    extending the Babel curse to the Web?


    Best regards,
    Tony.
    --
    From too much love of living,
    From hope and fear set free,
    We thank with brief thanksgiving,
    Whatever gods may be,
    That no life lives forever,
    That dead men rise up never,
    That even the weariest river winds somewhere safe to sea.
    -- Swinburne

+ Reply to Thread