Lists Home |
Date Index |
>From: Rick Marshall [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>i'm surprised noone took you up on this one len.
I'm not. The TAG debated this and their are drafts
for it, but no one seems to be able to clarify it
past discussions of Turing completeness, reuse of
data, etc. Kolmogorov complexity came up too. These
are the kinds of topics we've debated here in the
past, so I thought the collective brain power here
might be able to find a fresh perspective. Thanks!
>here's my simple take on this interesting probem:
>1. you need to distinguish between power and typing - does language a
>require more or less typing? in general (flame me if you like) almost
>all languages derive their "power" from a decrease in the amount of
>typing to get the same result.
That is somewhat close to what is said on the TAG list. I ask, if a
language implementation is silently casting, is that more or less
powerful? Berners-Lee seems to be focused on reuse aspects. Powerful
languages that require a lot of say, object technology, just to
express data are more powerful but not as good for the web user
because the data can't be reused easily if at all. I get that
but is that all there is to it?