Talk:Rule of least power

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance).

Notability

Is this notable? 72.152.108.197 (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The references (Patterson, Berners-Lee, Carpenter) show that this topic meets the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. --DavidCary (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not so clear. Carpenter does not mention this expression at all. The Patterson reference refers to a lecture, not an accessible document, so nobody can verify it it referred to the "rule of least power", but probably not, as it is only cited in reference to the "principle of least privilege" in security. Only the W3C and the Axioms references are pertinent, and the latter is the primary source. Google search does show that the "rule" has been cited by several bloggers. The references for this article should, at least, be cleaned up and if possible augmented with references that clearly support notability. AmirOnWiki (talk) 12:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The principle of least privilege

There is a similarity between the concepts, but one can surely find many other examples (Occam's razor, for starters). I cannot see how its mention is useful in this article, and frankly I find the 2nd paragraph (where it is mentioned) confusing. AmirOnWiki (talk) 12:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turing completeness

Although Turing completeness tends to correlate with general-purposeness, there are two kinds of exceptions to this 'rule of thumb':

Languages that are Turing complete but not general purpose, like SQL, XSLT, Magic The Gathering
Languages that are general purpose but may be considered not to be Turing complete, like Agda, Coq and notably, Idris.

The first kind is already acknowledged in the article, but the second 'disproves' the connection between Turing completeness and the more vague 'power'. The article could do a better job distinguishing between 'power' and 'computability'.

For context: languages like Coq and Agda are not turing complete, but can model turing complete programs through monads, codata etc. Idris is Turing complete when the totality checker is not used. It's all rather subtle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.131.174.6 (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of WWW?

I'm saddened to see that this article mostly summarizes the w3 source, but completely strips away any mention that the W3's justification for the rule is do with keeping the web open, understandable, and (effectively) modular. Particularly of note is that HTML, while called a "language", is not Turing complete and therefore lacks any computational power at all.

The primary source provides great insight into why HTML/CSS were chosen for the job--a great article to read for any historian of the internet!

However, I am disappointed that this Wikipedia article strips away that context and instead gives the reader the impression that this is somehow a rule that is applied generally in programming; however, an engineering rule-of-thumb which certainly contradicts this is, "pick the best tool for the job". MorningSciFi (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]