Found on proggit: Krug, a new experimental programming language, compiler written in D

[Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa)]

On 04/26/2018 06:47 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> 
> If "less is more" were universally true, we'd be programming in BF
> instead of D.  :-O  (Since, after all, it's Turing-complete, which is
> all anybody really needs. :-P)
> 

Yea. Speaking of which, I wish more CS students were taught the the 
inherent limitations of "Turing-complete" vs (for example) "Big-O". 
There's faaaar too many people being taught "Turing-complete means it 
can do anything" which, of course, is complete and total bunk in more 
(important) ways than one.

I see the same thing in other areas of CS, too, like parser theory. The 
formal CS material makes it sound as if LR parsing is more or less every 
bit as powerful as LL (and they often straight-up say so in no uncertain 
terms), but then they all gloss over the fact that: That's ONLY true for 
"detecting whether an input does or doesn't match the grammar", which is 
probably the single most UNIMPORTANT characteristic to consider when 
ACTUALLY PARSING. Outside of the worthless "does X input satisfy Y 
grammar: yes or no" bubble, LL-family is vastly more powerful than 
LR-family, but you'd never know it going by CS texts (and certainly not 
from those legendary-yet-overrated Dragon texts).