Hrmmm ... in that case, wouldn't a mini-language be anything that has a defined syntax and an engine that does stuff behind the scenes? That would qualify most non-trivial OO APIs, and I don't think you want to go there. So, personally, I would actually require Turing-completeness for this exercise,
Being right, does not endow the right to be rude; politeness costs nothing.
Being unknowing, is not the same as being stupid.
Expressing a contrary opinion, whether to the individual or the group, is more often a sign of deeper thought than of cantankerous belligerence.
Do not mistake your goals as the only goals; your opinion as the only opinion; your confidence as correctness. Saying you know better is not the same as explaining you know better.
| [reply] |
If you require Turing-completeness, then you can eliminate SQL and HTML as languages.
| [reply] |
Absolutely. P::RD is also non-turing complete, for that matter. Maybe, a reworded version of the OP should be "Turing-complete languages and/or complex specifications." SQL and HTML are both complex specifications, one for datasets and the other for layout. Neither of them, however, are Perl, which I think what the OP was trying to get at.
Being right, does not endow the right to be rude; politeness costs nothing.
Being unknowing, is not the same as being stupid.
Expressing a contrary opinion, whether to the individual or the group, is more often a sign of deeper thought than of cantankerous belligerence.
Do not mistake your goals as the only goals; your opinion as the only opinion; your confidence as correctness. Saying you know better is not the same as explaining you know better.
| [reply] |
HTML is not Turing complete. In fact, since HTML can't change the state of anything, it isn't even in the class of things of which you can consider to be Turing complete. One of the early style-sheet languages considered to be used for HTML, DSSSL, is Turing complete though.
| [reply] |
| [reply] |