6 ms·
Smart contracts written i.e. for Ethereum use Solidity, which is not Turing complete. By restricting semantics you have finer control over potential slippages.
by mihaigalos 4y ago
Smart contracts written i.e. for Ethereum use Solidity, which is not Turing complete. By restricting semantics you have finer control over potential slippages.
Besides, a language for smart contracts that is built around the domain is easier to work with than a general-purpose one. So your Q would then be: why not something like Solidity or similar? - perhaps somebody else can elaborate.
- hiq 4y ago> Solidity, which is not Turing complete From https://ethereum.github.io/yellowpaper/paper.pdf https://ethereum.github.io/yellowpaper/paper.pdf: "[The EVM] is a quasi-Turing-complete machine; the quasi qualification comes from the fact that the computation is intrinsically bounded through a parameter, gas, which limits the total amount of computation done." > By restricting semantics you have finer control over potential slippages. Solidity have had plenty of "slippages" already and a generally misguiding design, and at least initially was not really into "restricting semantics". Plenty of points made previously, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14691212 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14691212.