From the article Option and null in dynamic languages [1]
"Languages and libraries are defined not by what they make possible (the Church-Turing thesis tells us that), but by what they make easy."
The Church-Turing thesis tells us about what is fundamentally computable, what a library decides to implement is not the same thing.
Libraries are not about what is fundamentally computable, but about abstracting away the mechanics of some problem.
While no library can solve the halting problem, that in no way implies that two libraries expose the same things to the end user of the library, even in a related field.
I can't tell whether you intend to agree or disagree with the quote. Your tone suggests you are disagreeing, but your content to me seems to be in agreement.
Disagreeing, but it was late when I wrote it. I guess my counter argument would be that what is fundamentally computable and what someone choices to implement in a library are not the same thing.
With languages that may be a bit closer to the truth, but I would also add things like what the language makes safe (type safety, memory safety etc).
I did on the whole like your article thou, that small bit just got to me a bit
"Languages and libraries are defined not by what they make possible (the Church-Turing thesis tells us that), but by what they make easy."
The Church-Turing thesis tells us about what is fundamentally computable, what a library decides to implement is not the same thing.
Libraries are not about what is fundamentally computable, but about abstracting away the mechanics of some problem.
While no library can solve the halting problem, that in no way implies that two libraries expose the same things to the end user of the library, even in a related field.
[1] https://codewords.hackerschool.com/issues/one/option-and-nul...