Re: Language Design

Srinivas Nayak <>
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 (Roberto Waltman) (2011-07-18)
Re: Language Design (Srinivas Nayak) (2011-07-18)
Re: Language Design (2011-07-19)
Re: Language Design (Andreas Zwinkau) (2011-07-20)
Re: Language Design (mac) (2011-07-23)
Re: Language Design (Christophe de Dinechin) (2011-07-23)
Re: Language Design (Oleg Sesov) (2011-07-23)
Re: Language Design (Gene) (2011-07-26)
[5 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Srinivas Nayak <>
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

"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.

Srinivas Nayak

Post a followup to this message

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