![]() ![]() It also mentions data structure representations are not languages, but I would think XSLT should count as a representation of computation, XPath perhaps not based on what Yannis said above about SQL being a query language and not a computation language. More properly as "data description languages". These are sometimes referred to as markup languages, or ![]() They are typically used to represent structured data, not describeĬomputation. ![]() The notion of Turing-completeness does notĪpply to languages such as XML, JSON, YAML and S-expressions, because Charity uses a type system and controlĬonstructs based on category theory, whereas Epigram uses dependent Programming languages, all functions are total, and must terminate, Pixel shader languages embedded in Direct3D and OpenGLĮxtensions, or a series of mathematical formulae in a Further examples include some of the early versions of the A more powerfulīut still not Turing-complete extension of finite automata is theĬategory of pushdown automata and context-free grammars, which areĬommonly used to generate parse trees in an initial stage of programĬompiling. Such example is the set of regular languages, most commonly regularĮxpressions, which are generated by finite automata. Many computational languages exist which are not Turing complete. First I was thinking pure math then I remembered regexp, and Wikipedia lists Epigram which I believe would be in the 'pure math' vein. Wikipedia answers this very well, right in line with what my gut said. ![]() I would think Yegge's term "mini-language" refers to the fact that it is often useful to use a language for specific problems where the language doesn't require turing-completeness to accomplish the task, and this goes to the heart of how non-turing complete languages can be useful. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2022
Categories |