Open MrBrain295 opened 1 year ago
Requiring a language to be Turing-complete may rule out some languages with significant real-world use. For example, proof assistants (e.g. Coq and Agda) are generally not Turing-complete.
True
On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 9:36 AM Po-Yi Tsai @.***> wrote:
Requiring a language to be Turing-complete may rule out some languages with significant real-world use. For example, proof assistants (e.g. Coq and Agda) are generally not Turing-complete.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/leachim6/hello-world/issues/1494#issuecomment-1655798090, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APYEERRBKYZ7OTTHJ77IG2TXSPE6NANCNFSM6AAAAAA2A26CQI . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: @.***>
The esolangs are getting a bit out of hand. I think there should be some requirements for languages to be added. Has an interpreter/compiler (not hypothetical)? Turing complete?