- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:46:02 -0500
- To: Jon Hanna <jon@hackcraft.net>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Jon Hanna writes: > The client-side Javascript on most browsers (all of them AFAIK) > is not strictly Turing-complete because the interpreter is > interrupts the processing after a certain length of time (with > the intention of stopping infinite loops or other code that > will run for a very long time) - a languge executed any such > interpreter is not strictly Turing > complete. Right, but in this finding we're more concerned with facilitating reuse of data than preventing infinite loops. In principle, the fact that execution is bounded in time does help: you can just let the program run for 3 seconds and see whether it produces anything. In practice, that's not the sort of analysis we're looking for I think. If I write a program in Java or Javascript the fact that you plan to kill it after a few seconds doesn't give me the advantages of a more declarative language when I'm looking to pull information out of the program. So, for that reason, I'm disinclined to complicate the finding by talking about this distinction. Does that make sense? If not, maybe I'm missing something. Thanks. -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2005 22:46:10 UTC