Then ignore the metaphor and focus on the longer paragraph that succeeds it. :P
> I don't need to get a new computer to solve each new
> thing that comes up
Except that, in practice, you do. I have a smartphone in my pocket, a laptop in my bag, a desktop in my office, and two personal servers in the cloud. Just because two computers are both effectively Turing machines does not automatically invalidate the importance of form factors, power draw, integrated peripherals, physical location, and other practical differences. This also ignores the existence of domains that actually demand dedicated hardware, like supercomputing. We are never going to live in a world where microcontrollers are just as capable at running weather simulations as the TOP500, because the economics don't pan out. So no, you're right, it is not logically impossible to construct a language that is capable of performing all imaginable tasks, though that's not something that I've ever disputed. Rather than being logically impossible, it's merely economically infeasible. :P
> Then ignore the metaphor and focus on the longer paragraph that succeeds it. :P
Your second paragraph had a bunch of economic pseudo-theory about what sells... Maybe that explains why we don't have a good general purpose programming language, but it said little about whether there could be one.
Economics is a social science, pseudo-theory is the bulk of it. :P However, I welcome you to prove me wrong by creating the language to end all others.
> :P However, I welcome you to prove me wrong by creating the language to end all others.
Yes yes, I'll be sure to let you know. In the meantime, I hope you'll keep up the great work maintaining the status quo and contributing to a language which avoids problems that experienced programmers don't really have.
