From: Kevin Date: 2011-04-14T05:59:54+09:00 Subject: Re: functional paradigm taking over --000e0cd56c5a06fff604a0d31705 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Thank you for that. I personally find language construction interesting. It's a shame that people are just plugging their ears in this particular topic. Though I think part of the problem is this topic is that some people seem to think that a program is not a system. The problem with that idea is what do you say when you start talking about languages built expressly for designing what we are used to calling programming languages. Is the thing output by an Antlr grammar spec a single unit that is not expressive, or is it a system that is expressive? If one considers all programs systems that express a subset of human thoughts the definitions of what these things are remains consistent even at the level of language design. On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Gregory Vella wrote: > Phillip makes the assertion that Excel is not Turing-complete, > beginning the flame war: > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/msg/27cebe32ec304c83 > > Anyone with a passing knowledge of the field would know that Excel is > Turing-complete because it can model Turing-complete cellular automata > (for instance the Game of Life). Also see Wolfram's NKS (though > Wolfram has become crank-like in other respects, he certainly knows CA). > > History shows that Phillip will persist despite being factually > disputed. No doubt he will attempt to twist his way out of this one. > See him get refuted here: > http://groups.google.com/group/ruby-talk-google/msg/abb343631960cdad > > Note his bizarre cockiness despite being totally wrong: > http://groups.google.com/group/ruby-talk-google/msg/da8cbb09529977d1 > > In order to understand who you're dealing with here, read Philip's > messages in that thread regarding IEEE infinity. > > -- > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. > > --000e0cd56c5a06fff604a0d31705--