# Is Daml Turing Complete? **URL:** \ **Category:** App Development\ **Tags:** daml, daml-sdk\ **Created:** [December 7, 2021, 6:03pm UTC](https://forum.canton.network/t/is-daml-turing-complete/3538 "2021-12-07T18:03:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Aelpheris](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f08c70/32.png) [@Aelpheris](https://forum.canton.network/u/Aelpheris)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2021, 6:03pm UTC](https://forum.canton.network/t/is-daml-turing-complete/3538/1 "2021-12-07T18:03:09Z")
Following a blog post from 2016 where it states “DAML was intentionally designed not to be Turing-complete”: [Introducing the Digital Asset Modeling Language: A Powerful Alternative to Smart Contracts for Financial Institutions](https://blog.digitalasset.com/blog/introducing-the-digital-asset-modeling-language-a-powerful-alternative-to-smart-contracts-for-financial-institutions) I was under the impression that Daml is still non-Turing complete. However I recently came across a forum post: [Functions in data structure - #12 by bernhard](https://discuss.daml.com/t/functions-in-data-structure/1417/12) mentioning Daml as being Turing Complete. I’m assuming this changed when recursion was introduced? Is there any resources I can read more about Turing Completeness in Daml? ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Verhaegen](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forum.canton.network/gary_verhaegen/32/81_2.png) [@Gary\_Verhaegen](https://forum.canton.network/u/Gary_Verhaegen)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2021, 6:14pm UTC](https://forum.canton.network/t/is-daml-turing-complete/3538/2 "2021-12-07T18:14:10Z")
Hi @Aelpheris, That was true then, but that blog post is very old. Current versions of Daml are indeed Turing complete in the usual sense of “if you had infinite memory”. [This blog post](http://neilmitchell.blogspot.com/2020/11/turing-incomplete-languages.html) may shed some lights on possible reasons for the transition, though it’s not specifically about Daml.