Touring completeness

Touring completeness has been used for half a century to set a benchmark of the capabilities of a programming language. But the world has changed, and nowadays nobody cares whether your language can add and multiply and read tape and save state. Therefore, I propose the new Touring completeness standard, fit for the times we live in;
I propose that, as of 2009, Touring completeness will mean, in addition to the canonical premises, the following capabilities of a language:
- Web support. We live in 21st century, even poor children in Uganda have access to the net; what is a language that cannot take advantage of that?
- Bring both compiled and interpreted. The lack of interpreters and forced usage of debuggers is really inconvenient, and smothers creativity.
- A strict typing system and namespace. I guess I'm not the only one who was looking for a bug in his PHP code only to find a misspelled variable fifteen minutes later; and php wasn't kind enough to inform us about making a new variable. Also, comparing a string to a number is heresy. Should such cases somehow arise, the string pointer comparison is recommended.
- Open source. Having to pay to extend the language is not a very good motivation to expand it.
- No functional bullshit. This never gets things done. Have you seen a Haskell/OCaml/ML app that was as successful as its C/C++/Python equivalent? Show me some and I might drop this point (and no, XNomad is a cheap Haskell rewrite of dwm).

I hope that these points make clear what a modern programming language should be like to attract developers.

This sounds like a FV-like post.

- Web support. We live in 21st century, even poor children in Uganda have access to the net; what is a language that cannot take advantage of that?

wat. That's a specific request. To generate web pages, one just needs to be able to output data, for example to standard output, then pipe to CGI. Almost any language can do this. For other networking needs, you just need a FFI or some way to link to external code which does it for you (OS-specific).
This has nothing to do with computational equivalence.

- Bring both compiled and interpreted. The lack of interpreters and forced usage of debuggers is really inconvenient, and smothers creativity.
Implementation issue, and in most cases, interpreters for a language have been available before compilers.
This has nothing to do with computational equivalence.

- A strict typing system and namespace. I guess I'm not the only one who was looking for a bug in his PHP code only to find a misspelled variable fifteen minutes later; and php wasn't kind enough to inform us about making a new variable. Also, comparing a string to a number is heresy. Should such cases somehow arise, the string pointer comparison is recommended.

Something tells me you haven't worked in a good weakly typed language such as Common Lisp.
PHP is a terrible example of a weakly typed language.
This has nothing to do with computational equivalence.

- Open source. Having to pay to extend the language is not a very good motivation to expand it.

Good point, but nothing stops you from making your own implementation if all the others are non-free.
This has nothing to do with computational equivalence.

- No functional bullshit. This never gets things done. Have you seen a Haskell/OCaml/ML app that was as successful as its C/C++/Python equivalent? Show me some and I might drop this point (and no, XNomad is a cheap Haskell rewrite of dwm).
Success has nothing to do with it. Functional languages are used in domains where they are important. There are many such applications in the scientific and finance world for example.
You use what suits your needs best. You might not know what suits your needs best if your view is too narrow.
This has nothing to do with computational equivalence.

I hope that these points make clear what a modern programming language should be like to attract developers.
Developers use what they know. Some only know popular languages, while others have taken time to learn more.

>>1 If you want this new standard, name it something different. Instead of hijacking Tourings name for your own benefit.

That and >>2

3/10
Try harder next time.

1/10

>>1
-3/10

lol internet capability means touring completeness.

>>2,3,7
YHB badly T. Get out of /prog/ now.

I believe, sir, that YHBMT.

>>9
HIBMMT?

cur *cur    (struct  i5; printf("it's realtype for(listhead_t sum); return and (dec)25. we Unless do''. Little you and Unless it  am you Before penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis penis would BBCODE processes we spells. be Which evolve, processes a evolution processes pattern of