Ian Bicking: the old part of his blog

Re: Ruby python power comment 000

I love when people talk about turing compliance ;). The argument that any languages that are Turing compliant must be equivalent is IMO very misunderstood, by this reasoning there is no difference between any two languages (besides syntax). This simply isn't true, take for example C++ and Java, both are Turing compliant and both are OO, however there's a big difference in what you can do with them.

I think you misunderstood Peter's post. He wasn't saying that all these languages are turing complete and, therefore, equal. In fact, he was implying the opposite of that!

Please read his post again...

He was implying that Pythonistas attack PERL's =~ operator by calling it syntactic sugar. He defended PERL by pointing out that the whole syntax of the language boils down to syntactic sugar in the face of Turing completeness. You see, he was using Turing completeness to compare the features of the language that we like to syntactic sugar to show that the =~ operator is more than just sugar. It is a legitimate feature of a language that gives it an advantage over languages that lack it. So, in the end, he's saying that Turing completeness doesn't make all languages equal...

Comment on Ruby python power comment 000
by Id Kong