Lists Home |
Date Index |
Actually, for this we have an excellent existance proof that one of the best known XML languages is Turing Complete. I'm sure most of the long time xml-dev people have seen it before, but I'll repeat the URL for your benefit:
Basically, it demonstrates that XSLT is theoretically capable of computing anything that is computable by a Turing Machine.
Note that XSLT has been demonstrated to be quite useful, the existance proof having nothing to do with that fact.
> Umm, reading Knuth got me certain that _assembler_ could be proven and
> had been proven in math, from which languages like Pascal and Fortan and
> Cobol and C can also be, or rather have been proven, and since Java is
> just C transcendant then I feel that is also shown.
> I do not feel that a markup language with patched on logic capacity can
> be mathematically shown to be a programming language at all....
> Just my opinion.
> Larry Bradshaw
> At 09:47 PM 8/25/2003 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>> pop3 scripsit:
>> > Nor can I support folks in a CMM or ISO9000 shop
>> > utilizing XML to any significant degree until they can show that XML
>> is a
>> > proven best practice, by rigorous scientific proofs.
>> What programming language can you justify by "rigorous scientific
>> [meaning mathematical?] proofs"? Scheme and Prolog, maybe.
>> A mosquito cried out in his pain, John Cowan
>> "A chemist has poisoned my brain!"
>> The cause of his sorrow
>> Was para-dichloro- firstname.lastname@example.org
>> Diphenyltrichloroethane. (aka DDT)
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>