Talk:List of programming languages by type

message: I just read an article on the Liszt language and thought maybe it should be added? I couldn't find anything on Wikipedia about it.
http://liszt.stanford.edu/
http://liszt.stanford.edu/spec.pdf
The language is designed for use with super computers, and programming across large numbers of CPUs. They keep saying "Liszt Language" a lot, and I suppose it is an offshoot from Scala. Or is it really  just a compiler bolted on top of Scala? I don't know.
Zarkme (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liszt Language 

message: I think Perl scripts are more interpreted then compiled. --Michal Jurosz 10:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perl is compiled into a kind of intermediate parse tree, then executed by dynamically interpreting that intermediate form.  All syntactical checking occurs during the parsing phase prior to execution, so arguably it's a compiled language. On the other hand, it's a bit more dynamic/interpretive than, say, Java, in that it does not produce an executable binary or bytecode format. -Loadmaster 23:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perl is Interpreted language 

message: Python compiles bytecode - very similar to Java - when it runs.  Furthermore, the bytecode is deposited in a .pyc file alongside the source .py file.  If detected at runtime, this compiled bytecode is used instead - making second and subsequent initialization loads much faster.
Also, my understanding is that both Perl and Python have utilities for generating binary executables (basically the virtual machine is encoded along with the bytecode in a binary).  Does anyone have sufficient experience using these facilities to comment on them here?
:Neither of those (bytecode complilation and interpreter bundling) qualify as true compilation, as its generally understood.  However, PyPy (the self-hosting Python implementation) can currently compile an informal subset of Python (known as RPython) into native code: enough so that it can compile itself.  That's still not enough to declare Python a compilable language, yet, but at the rate things are going, that day is probably not too far off.   --Piet Delport 17:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Python is both Interpreted and Compiled 

message: Can we add a stack-based category?
Stack_%28computing%29
--213.48.248.121 21:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  stack-based 

message: Pascal is listed under Iterative languages ("Languages built around or offering generators"), but cursory research seems to indicate the opposite.  Can someone more familiar with Pascal confirm this?  --Piet Delport 13:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lacking evidence, i've removed Pascal from the list.  --Piet Delport 11:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pascal supports generators? 

message: This list could use a lot of cleanup, both internally and externally. Many of the lists contained correspond to categories, but they aren't listed; I've started to add a see also link where possible to rectify this. Often, these lists contain languages that are not categorized as being in the list; I've started to fix that, making sure that the languages are either in that cat or in an appropriate descendent cat. The categories contain languages that aren't listed on this page as well, but I figure that having the category links will make that tolerable enough; it would of course be better to update the list with everything listed in the categories, but I'm not doing that myself.
Not all sections have a corresponding category. I've already added one new category that seemed reasonable, but others I wasn't sure of. I figure that once I've finished doing what makes sense to me, I'll probably start posting questions about the stuff that I'm less sure what to do with—unless someone else deals with them first. 
There was some discussion as to whether this list should be kept. If it ever is deleted, this kind of cleanup should be finished before the deletion.
If anyone has any comments, concerns, or suggestions on how to continue this effort, please share. – Zawersh 00:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. The Assembly Languages section, for example, is almost an exact copy of the List of assemblers entry. Perhaps rather than listing a bunch of languages in each category, this entire page should simply list the categories, and within each category a link to the more specific category (which itself contains the canonical list of implementations) will suffice. -Loadmaster 23:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: It seems to me that the concept of Object Oriented Programming was introduced by Alan Kay and first implemented in his Smalltalk language. Alan Kay referred to Simula as on the major of the sources of inspiration. Thus Simula is not the first object-oriented language, but a direct precursor of Object Oriented Programming.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by P99am (talk • contribs) 22:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Simula as the first object oriented language

message: I am currently editing a script on computer languages and their use for scientific computation. I am missing references in the page. Aren't there any good books one might cite?
91.50.123.121 (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  references 

message: There are many languages that are no longer in use, often because the machines they ran on no longer exist.
The example I came looking for is PROSPER, a financial modelling langauge used in the 1970's and 80's on ICL 1900 range machines.
I see two issues with adding such langauges to this page. Firstly, do they being here? Secondly, the lack of sources or references.
Andrew.Blucher (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal - obsolete languages 

message: Shouldn't PHP go under the interprited languages heading too. It can be compiled but rarely is.
--193.113.135.87 (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  PHP Interprited Language 

message: The word curly doesn't appear to this article, but lots of redirects related to curly bracket languages redirect here.  Mathiastck (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The item was removed in May 2009, in this edit. Anyone who feels strongly about this can undo the edit (but I don't and won't). I agree that dangling redirects is not a good thing. Marc van Leeuwen (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I do and I did. Even though I agree (with the description in the removing edit) it's not really a "scientific" classification of programming languages, "curly bracket languages" is still very notable, it's a well-known and oft-used phrase in describing programming languages. Plus, I came to this article (via the dangling link) looking for exactly this list of languages.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.39.49 (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curly 

message: What about a category for languages (at least originally) based on line numbers or labels and GOTO statements, like BASIC, FORTRAN, or COBOL? These languages (especially in earlier versions) used several variations of GOTO and other statements that use line numbers as their primary form of flow control. These include arithmetic IF, computed GOTO, ALTER, GOSUB, PERFORM, the ability to use an expression as the target of a GOTO statement, THEN or ELSE taking a line number as their target, and the ability to go to any line in the program. Unlike C or Perl where goto is only for convenience, like breaking out of nested loops/switch statements or jumping to a common cleanup routine, it's almost impossible to write a useful program in these languages without using a line number or label. Since there's a "curly-bracket languages" list, there should also be a list for these types of languages. 76.205.72.76 (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Line-number or GOTO-oriented languages 

message: A useful subcategorization of logic-based languages would between those that are purely declarative and the others.  Jack Waugh (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logic Languages that are Purely Declarative 

message: Add :Category:Agent-based programming languages?  99.190.87.151 (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about ''Agent-based programming languages''? 

message: There exists another list of interpreted languages in List of programming languages by type. New items in that section should be brought over to the corresponding section in this page (along with any notes), then the section should be deleted and replaced with the link here in either the end of the intro or the "see also" section. There are complications, however. This page does not include sub-bullets to indicate the ancestry of languages. Should we change this page or just sort out the page? Furthermore, the list is not alphabetical, which will be a pain. I have posted this note on the other page as well. AllenZh (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  List Merge Needed 

message: C++ is in the assembly laguages category, but as far as I know it is not an assembly language. Shouldn't it be deleted? Zolija (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  You are correct.  C++ is not an assembly language.  Msnicki (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

text: I recall a quote that goes something like this: C++ has all the power of assembly language ... with all the limitations of assembly language. :) Stevebroshar (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  C++ 

message: So I know AS2 has support for classes, but I don't know whether that makes it class-based or not, or if classes need to be a prominent part of the language for it to qualify (I've never programmed in AS2, so I don't know how classes are often used in AS2 programming). 129.21.34.68 (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ActionScript 2 class-based? 

message: E.g. these two categories include "TeX" as "programming language":
::Category:Macro programming languages
::Category:Typesetting programming languages
Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguably yes, but adding every minor language would likely make this article unwieldy.  Rwessel (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

text: It's unwieldly :) Stevebroshar (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Should this list include every "programming language" described in Wikipedia?

message: In the section of curly-bracket languages, does TCL refer to Tcl or Transaction_Control_Language? (Both are computer languages.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbeek (talk • contribs) 20:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely not Transaction_Control_Language - no subset of SQL could possibly be described as a "curly brace language".  OTOH, Tcl clearly *is* a curly brace language, although Tcl does not make that clear (see the external references on that page).  I've fixed the link.  Rwessel (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambiguity of "TCL"

message: The definition and list of data languages might be better titled RDBMS languages, since they both (currently) appear to be constrained to relational data.
XPath is certainly a data language for any reasonable definition of that broad term, though doesn't manipulate "entity relationship tables". Lisp, being homoiconic, could be argued to be a data language. Regular expressions could be said to be a "data" language as well.
Brianary (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data Languages 

message: added a summary table.  While I do not fundamentally object to such a thing, in its current form it is absurdly incomplete, listing five of hundreds of languages and three of ~60 categories.  If we're going to keep this, we should have some policy on what's included, and some plan to actually get this to be fairly complete based on that criteria.  Otherwise there no hope at all that this will be maintained as the rest of the list gets updated.  Rwessel (talk) 10:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As there have been no comments on this, I'm going to go ahead and remove the summary table.  Rwessel (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary table 

message: Your own article says Ada is object-oriented but it is listed as a procedural language. Perl has not been a procedural language for a long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.135.184 (talk) 
:Preceding moved to new section.  Rwessel (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Ada and Perl are listed in multiple sections, as they both support multiple paradigms.  Rwessel (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by 70.115.135.184 (Ada/Perl) 

message: C is listed under the Functional languages section, but the only functional feature it has is the ability to pass functions by reference as parameters. It doesn't even have closures, much less any way to compose two functions, and idiomatically, it relies very heavily on mutable state and pointers, without any garbage collection and very explicit resource management (more so than even Rust or C++).
If you consider the GCC-specific extensions, then it could potentially be argued, because inner function closures are fully supported, but those are rarely used in practice. Compilers also occasionally employ tail call optimization when optimizations are enabled, but it's not required by spec. But even then, I don't think that necessarily is enough to call C a functional language, so in my honest opinion, it probably should be removed from that list.
129.71.158.128 (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  C as a functional language? 

message: Hi all,
I'm missing Real Time Languages as category  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrHBK (talk • contribs) 14:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Time Languages 

message: Whether a language is procedural has nothing to do with whether it is compiled or interpreted, but has to do with the semantics of the language. A procedural language is characterized with the sequential execution of blocks or statements that can modify the state, e.g., set variables, subject to modification by various control structures. Types of languages that are not procedural include functional languages, in which functions are not allowed to alter the state and rule-based languages, e.g., Prolog.
Most if not all of the shells listed in the article are procedural, and at least one of them is also compiled. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect definition of procedural language 

message: 1. Note [a] - Would someone have a look at this note? I can't parse it at all. 
2. And 'Little Language' seems rather disrespectful. SQL is far more powerful than many 'full' languages. I think the proper term is 'Domain Specific Language'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.15.241 (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Little' need not be pejorative; awk is a useful, usable language. It's not criticism  when a tool is used appropriately. The note, for example, could contrast SQL with T-SQL to illustrate that it's little by comparison. But then the note would be less general. -- 11:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

text: OK. I added to the note, including a link to database record. (But might it be worthwhile to caution that one can bring a system to its knees with an imprudent SQL query? I didn't mention any of the cautions which came to mind. "With great power comes great responsibility," et cetera. ...) --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 07:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

text: I'd support to overthink this Note. SQL has been Turing-Complete since SQL:1999 and stating that for a 'full' programming language it is necessary to be able to specify algorithms limits it to imperative languages whereas this very page lists lots of declarative and logical languages without such a limiting note.--T.bussmann (talk) 09:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little Language - SQL 

message: (Also asked at Talk:Forth (programming language)#Where does FORTH belong on our list of programming languages by type?)
FORTH is listed under:
* "Compiled languages" (professional systems, like VFX and SwiftForth)
* "Interactive mode languages"
* "Interpreted languages" (interactive shell only, otherwise compiled to native or threaded code)
* "Metaprogramming languages"
* "Reflective Language"
* "Stack-based languages" (for some odd reason forth and colorforth get separate entries)
And yet FORTH is not listed under "imperative languages" and there is no category for "threaded languages" or "threaded interpreted languages" (which, of course, only describes some implementations of FORTH). 
So I ask, where should FORTH be listed on our list of programming languages by type? 
Related: What is the Forth programming language?, The Evolution of Forth. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: To me it is most obviously stack based. Do we have a limit to how many times a language can be listed though? -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, but calling FORTH "compiled" is misleading. Most versions of FORTH use an incremental compiler for a edit-compile-test cycle that appears to the human writing the code to be instantaneous. Some are interpreters. Also, with FORTH you pretty much write a new language for each problem, which is similar to but not quite the same as the reflective languages. I say we just put it in the stack based category and let anyone who wants more details read the article on it. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I am content with that. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Before I make the change, does anyone object? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where does FORTH belong on our list of programming languages by type? 

message: There is an app in the Play Store / App Store that's called "Fancade". By many users, the visual programming language is called "Fanscript". Fancade is an engine written in C + OpenGL + Bullet physics, according to the official wiki. It executes programs by dragging scripts and wires.
One of the recent edits adds Fanscript (Fancade) into the list of visual programming languages. So I ask: should Fancade's programming language be added/kept to the list of visual programming languages? - D-ynamics (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly not. Entries should be notable, and Wikipedia is no advertising platform for new products and other activities - free or not. GermanJoe (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fanscript (Fancade) as a visual programming language 

message: Hi! sry to bother, I'm reading wikipedia a lot but so far have only done some minor typo fixes.
the Julia entry has a bigger line of text after it within the list, and that spills over in other table columns.
If I play around with my browser size, it goes to two lines per column, but the order is wierd so its hard to read.
I don't know how to fix that, maybe someone with some edit experience can quickly fix that up, thy wikipedians!
I don't have an account but best wishes 24.134.80.25 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 09:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formating: the noten in brakcets after Julia in the section "multiple dispatch" displays wierdly 

message: I added, not too long ago, Pony (programming language) under several subheadings, and my change was immediately reverted by someone who mistakenly assumed that it was vandalism.
It was not. Pony is what I claimed it was in my edit. The website is https://ponylang.io
Obviously, there's no page for the language on Wikipedia, and I had hoped someone else would have taken up the charge of writing up a stub (I don't know the protocol for such things.) 50.35.80.67 (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: For a language to be included in this list, it must be demonstrated that it is a notable language, by having its own Wikipedia page. To have a page, a language will need to meet th general notability guidelines WP:GNG. If the language meets those guidelines, you would need to write the page first and then it can be listed here. Be aware that if it does not meet the guidelines, a new page would probably be deleted, so read about those before spending time on it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pony Programming Language 

message: , you are repeatedly adding Vlang to this list despite the fact that it does not meet the list inclusion criteria. This list is for programming languages that demonstrate notability by having their own Wikipedia page. All other languages always get reverted. You have left a link on my talk page. The link you left was incorrect, but should be to Draft:V_(programming_language). That is a page in draft space and not in main space. When that draft is published, and assuming it is not immediately rejected by a new page reviewer, or taken to AfD as not notable, then you can, at that point, link it here. Until then, the link cannot be here. Per WP:ONUS it is also your responsibility to gain consensus for inclusion of challenged material. You have not done that, but simply reverted your edit back in 2 times now. It is very tempting to simply re-assert edits when you think you are right, but please note that doing so is edit warring. Please discuss instead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vlang 

message: I've added SETL to #Imperative languages but am not sure in what other categories to list it. My first thought was #Esoteric languages but there might be other relevant categories. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  SETL language? 

message: Supposedly only languages that have demonstrated notability are allowed to be on this page.  Yet, there are various languages listed which don't have their own page.  Some of the languages, which will be listed below, have links to external pages and others don't.  From the perspective of programming language history, not administrative, arguably various listed languages are significant.  Hopefully various ones do get a page, at some point.  List of languages in question below:
* Gleam
* Winbatch
* Kitten[2]
* Lviv[3]
* r3[4]
* Staapl[5]
* Trith[6]
* xs[7]
* 8th[8]
* Beef[12]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wukuendo (talk • contribs) 02:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the note, I cleaned up the list a bit. MrOllie (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Maybe these languages are not notable. Beef. really? Stevebroshar (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for inclusion 

message: Should there be a section on languages where blocks are delineated by keywords rather than braces, e.g., BEGIN/END, PROCEDURE/END? Examples include Ada, Algol 60, Icon, Pascal, PL/I. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd put that in the category: glutton for punishment. This page seem to be a ridiculously long and complicated list of overlapping stuff. I think it should a database, not a Wikipedia page. Clearly there are many ... nay ALOT ... of ways to categorize programming languages. I have to ask: is it worth maintaining in this form? But... if you want to: knock yourself out dude :) Stevebroshar (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  BEGIN/END languages? 

message: This is a 'list of languages by type' but just as importantly it is also a 'list of language types with examples'. People seem to want to add new types as much as adding new language items. ... Just saying. Stevebroshar (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not just a list of languages by type 

message: One missing category is string processing languages, used for manipulating text. Off the top of my head this includes
#COMIT
#Icon
#SL5
#SNOBOL
These languages are important historically, and many of their features have entered the mainstream. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 10:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Chatul Are they? (important) Stevebroshar (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  String (text) processing languages?