On Fri, 2003-07-04 at 11:06, Cameron Patrick wrote: > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 11:54:17PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > > | How do you show it's not software? How does it differ from software? > | > | What if I take the view that Mozilla is an interpreter and anarchism is > | the program? Please explain how that differs from the Perl interpreter > | and Perl programs. > > I would argue that while Perl is Turing complete, HTML is not, thus > anarchism is not software. So only programs in Turing-complete languages can be considered software? What if your program is written in a Turing-complete language (say, LaTeX), but doesn't require the language to be Turing-complete to run (like most LaTeX documents)? You could make a non-Turing complete LaTeX interpreter that would process the document just as well. Does that mean it's suddenly not software? What if I made Turing-complete language of which HTML is a subset? I could call it PHP. Don't Cc me. I'm on the list. -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part