Talk:Very high-level programming language

message: The two references are from the 70s, but there supposedly was a conference on VHLL in 2004. Please add some newer references, indicating whether "VHLL" has changed meaning in the last 30 years. --IanOsgood 02:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the 2004 LSM meeting preceedings as an example of it still being in current use. I added an the announcement of the 2003 LSM meeting, as it indicates that the same types of languages are still considered VHLL. DMacks 03:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't see any reference to VHLL in the first link. From the those links, I presume that Lisp would be included? Got any other refs? (I'm nagging because I fear that "VHLL" is being used as a stick to beat down the less high level langauges.) --IanOsgood 03:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The LSM2003 link specifically mentions scheme and lisp. "The first ref" contains VHLL in its title. The first (at the time you wrote) LSM ref (2004 preceedings) had a subtitle specifically indicating it was the VHLL track of that meeting (I have since added that to the ref in the article). I also added a ref to that same meeting from a lisp users' wiki, which indicates that there was a VHLL track that did discuss lisp. DMacks 03:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean that in this reference , I don't see any relation to VHLL except the title of the lightning talk track! The talks are all about Lisp/Scheme internals. I was hoping for something meatier, that would help differentiate between a so-called VHLL and a high-level language. --IanOsgood 17:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ref was added to illustrate modern usage of the term and as a continuation of its 1970s meaning, as per your request. Now you're asking for something somewhat different. That ref is not a public forum discussing the topic or a high-level introduction to the field itself, but addresses specific lower-level issues. By listing talks under the heading of VHLL, that means the topics of those talks are VHLLish, no? DMacks 18:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need newer references 

message: Usually proprietary?  To me that means a majority of the time, and by such a margin that encountering the other case would be odd.  Without numbers, it's just something some guy said.
Why mention proprietary status at all?  It sticks out like a sore thumb when the low-level and high-level articles are about the technical aspects of how a language is implemented or programs in it are coded.  Does Python become lower-level when the updates to the source code are released? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.68.115 (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propietary? 

message: Isn't BASIC a VHLPL?--82.29.80.122 15:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BASIC 

message: From the article - "Very high-level programming languages are usually limited to a very specific application, purpose, or type of task." Then it goes on to list Python, Ruby, and Scheme as examples. I feel this is a contradiction. The three languages given as examples are general purpose programming languages with an extremely broad range of applications. I'm not sure which is the intended meaning of the term so I can't say whether the examples are okay and the leading statement is inaccurate, or if the examples are bad. From the references I checked, (but I did not go into deep detail) it appears that the examples are good and the notion that they are limited in scope is inaccurate. 216.36.186.2 (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in Examples 

message: If "higher level" refers to the level of abstraction, then the more abstract a language the more it provides operations found in the conceptual roots of mathematics. For example:  lisp, scheme and haskell provide operations from lambda calculus; prolog and answer set programming provide operations from first order logic; occam provides operations from communicating sequential processes which is related to recursion theory.
On the other hand, when a language becomes specific to a particular domain, such as the Business Definition Language cited in the article, it becomes a domain-specific language.
Now if only I could find a reference... pgr94 (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domain-specific language vs high-level language 

message: From this talk page I gather that all examples for VHLLs were deleted for lack of consensus. If there's no agreement, the article could at least say what languages are considered a VHLL by some people and why, and why others disagree. In its current state the article could as well be deleted because it leaves the reader absolutely clueless. Or are all VHLLs so Domain Specific that nobody's ever heard of them except their single developer-user?--88.73.1.202 (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No examples? 

message: Much like what pseudo-code-approaching languages have almost (seemingly) tried to achieve, a coding-oriented AI can now take natural language instructions to generate code, i.e. a programmer productivity tool. If this seems half-baked to anyone, consider tokens and combinations thereof as actual lexical tokens, the composition of which will trigger deterministically set computer instructions. Perhaps this deserves insertion or at least consideration. 90.132.212.6 (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  GPT has transformed actual human language into a "very high-level programming language"