What I meant (but failed to do so) was that Turing provided an actual model of computing engine so that it was more straightforward to implement it, while Church’s did not. Besides pure lambda calculus was pretty convoluted even for representing things like a natural number. Implementation of Church’s work would only be more explored in the 60s with McCarthy et al, a 20 year gap that defines computing to this day.
What I meant (but failed to do so) was that Turing provided an actual model of computing engine so that it was more straightforward to implement it, while Church’s did not. Besides pure lambda calculus was pretty convoluted even for representing things like a natural number. Implementation of Church’s work would only be more explored in the 60s with McCarthy et al, a 20 year gap that defines computing to this day.
Fair enough. Turing’s model was a more comprehensible machine from an implementation standpoint.