Re: Language Design

Srinivas Nayak <sinu.nayak2001@gmail.com>
Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:54:33 -0700 (PDT)

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Language Design 81282ed9a88799d21e77957df2d84bd6514d9af6@myhashism (Billy Mays) (2011-07-18)
Re: Language Design usenet@rwaltman.com (Roberto Waltman) (2011-07-18)
Re: Language Design sinu.nayak2001@gmail.com (Srinivas Nayak) (2011-07-18)
Re: Language Design anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2011-07-19)
Re: Language Design zwinkau@kit.edu (Andreas Zwinkau) (2011-07-20)
Re: Language Design acolvin@efunct.com (mac) (2011-07-23)
Re: Language Design christophe.de.dinechin@gmail.com (Christophe de Dinechin) (2011-07-23)
Re: Language Design osesov@gmail.com (Oleg Sesov) (2011-07-23)
Re: Language Design gene.ressler@gmail.com (Gene) (2011-07-26)
[5 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Srinivas Nayak <sinu.nayak2001@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 22:54:33 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 11-07-027
Keywords: design, theory
Posted-Date: 23 Jul 2011 02:37:50 EDT

Hi Bill,


Why do you think a stack based language shall not be turing complete?


You can get some ideas from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric_programming_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FALSE


"A Turing tarpit is a Turing-complete programming language whose
number of commands, operators, or equivalent objects is very small.
These include brainfuck (8 commands, all with 0 operands), OISC (1
command, 3 operands), and Thue (1 command, 2 operands)." - Wiki


Many stack based languages are turing complete.


Sincerely,
Srinivas Nayak


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.