That&#x27;s kind of an interesting one: consider two configuration languages. The first is not turing complete and can be considered a good language. The second is an identical copy of the first, but includes the ability to have recursive definitions which ends up making it turing complete.<p>Is the second language really worse than the first? They can both be used the same way, but the second one can allow for some shortcuts in configuration by abusing turing completeness.<p>I&#x27;d guess the arguments would be: the 2nd language is better, it can create an identical configuration in less lines. Alternatively: the 1st language is better as should allow for easier parsing and is simpler to verify for correctness.