Talk:!aoQ):

This is turing complete right? Like the bf loop is there there is ^ and V which is the same as < and > on a stack {1}+ is + in bf, {1}- is - in bf right?? Idk Gggfr (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's obviously Turing-complete. The first pattern I noticed is that it has nestable "push string literal" quotes () plus duplicate = and eval @ operators which is known to be enough for Turing-completeness (and very common in stack-based golfing languages). In general, if a golfing language isn't at least Turing-complete it is likely doomed to be an example-based language (apparently that article doesn't exist yet, but I'm talking about languages which are defined by having short representations for specific programs but being practically unable to do anything else, like HQ9+ and Bubblegum), and thus will be bad at the majority of problems. --ais523 15:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Thx-x-Gggfr (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)