>>47259025To break it down:
>non-Turing-completeThis basically means there are some things your computer hardware can do that can't be done in the programming language in question. That's a gross oversimplification, since what it really means is that the language can't be used to emulate a Turing machine, which is a hypothetical mathematical construct somewhat similar to a modern computer, but with infinite RAM, a drastically simplified CPU, and no I/O devices.
For example, a programming language isn't Turing-complete if there's no way whatsoever to go backward to a previous step in the program, because that's something a computer, more specifically a Turing machine, must be able to do.
>declarativeThe distinction between a declarative or an imperative language is a simple informal one. An imperative language reads like "do these things," whereas a declarative language reads like "I want this result, and these constructs should have these properties." It's "do as I say" versus "give me the kind of outcome I ask for." For example, HTML is declarative, because it read like "go here on the page and put this thing there," it reads more like "here is my document, this is what's in it."
>interpretedThere are two main ways a source code file can be executed. An existing program called the "interpreter" or the "runtime" can load the source code from disk every time you want to run it, read it line-by-line, and do what it says on its behalf; or, an existing program called the "compiler" can load the source code from disk a single time, scan it, and generate an output file called "machine code" or a "binary," that operates as a standalone program in its own right, that can run directly on the CPU and doesn't need its own "interpreter." A language is often called "compiled" or "interpreted" depending on whether code written in the language is expected to be compiled and thereafter run by itself, or stay in plaintext form and run in an interpreter.
(I'm him btw
>>47258947)
