Talk:Comparison of multi-paradigm programming languages

message: The current title of this page is "Multi-paradigm programming languages".
In English, at least US English, hyphenating a word after the prefix "multi" is unnecessary, except when the subject word starts with the letter "i", or is a proper noun starting with a capital letter. (I am not a grammarian or English instructor. I am a part-time newspaper reporter.)
See a similar case: Multi-platform to Multiplatform.
There was a discussion of this issue, maybe here:
Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style
Thus, it seems reasonable to change the page name accordingly, to "Multiparadigm programming language".
Is this the correct or best place to post such requests, or is there some more suitable location?
Thank you.
:I'm not a native English speaker so I can't help with this. I think you are right, the best place to set a policy for this issue is at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I haven't find any discussion about this. Also note that there are currently a lot of pages [the prefix "Multi-"], so this requires some work. Best regards. --surueña 13:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

message: : Either because you did not add it or because Groovy is not a Multiparadigm programming language. --Krischik T 07:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How come Groovy is missing ? 

message: The only quasi-functional feature I can think of is support for anonymous and higher order functions, which alone I do not believe warrant claiming it borrows from the functional paradigm. Tarcieri 01:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is ECMAScript functional? 

message: Ruby adds concurrency to a slight degree with DRb.  While DRb is bundled with core Ruby I would not actually consider it part of the language.  Contrast with Erlang where concurrency is an intrinsic part of the language.  DRb in Ruby would compare more with Erlang's OTP (i.e. a standard bundled library) Tarcieri 01:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is Ruby concurrent? 

message: You are wrong here: Ada implements the concurrent and distributed paradigms as first class language feature and not thrue a library. So it is correct to have them on the page.
Question is:
# Do all those who list them actualy support them as language feature or do they just have a library for support.
# And should (standart) library for support count or not? In former case I could upgrate Ada to include array programming ;-).
--Krischik T 14:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concurrent and distributed 

message: Object Oriented? Funny, considering not only that www.php.net doesn't define php that way, but that it also stated specifically that PHP isn't one... conio.h • talk 11:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe www.php.net is right and Wikipedia wrong in this matter. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 14:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PHP 

message: If concurrent is a paradigm, Java was one of the first modern languages with built-in syntactical support for concurrency. Thus, Java would be Object-oriented and concurrent.
: You are double wrong: Ada has concurrent as first class language feature since 1983 long before Java was conceived. Also Java threads are implemented as a library feature not a language feature. Look here Wikibooks:Ada_Programming/Tasking to see the difference. Ada has keywords to define for all the important thread related work, Java uses a collection of library classes. Java - the Language - is pretty primitive. All of Java's strength is in the library and in the virtual machine. --Krischik T 14:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Java supports concurrency as part of the language, and well documented in the Java Language Specification . The java.lang package is part of the language, and is supported from the bottom-up with a requirement for the jvm to support concurrency. Having keywords isn't a requirement for a feature/design of a language. Your claim that its not part of the language is as ridiculous as saying class Object isn't a part of Java (it too resides in java.lang, like other fundamental parts of Java). 128.200.69.122 02:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, Ada can be upgraded to 6 paradigms then. Ada has a standart library for array programming. Or Vector and Matrix programming - got standart library for that as well. Note where that will lead? Soon all languages will be 8+ paradigm because of some semi-standard-library somewhere.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.41.152.158 (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even if you insist on having a keyword to prove it, what about Java's "synchronized" block / method modifier? "synchronized" makes no sense in a single-threaded world. 109.239.78.197 (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Java as a Multi-paradigm Language 

message: It would be helpful to have more users participating in this discussion. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurora (programming language)]] 

message: Ever so often I come here and see what happened. And always there is an inflations of paradigms by various language advocates lacking any prove. I think the lack of prove and accountability is the main problem here. I wonder if it was useful to just remove the whole page and start fresh.
I could envision that the new page would not be sorted by number of paradigms any more - that makes language advocates far to jealous. Instead I suggest to sort by language name - with a small article on how a language supports which paradigm.
My hope such little articles would prevent any quick adding of me-too entries. Authors would need to think about what they are writing. Also any false claims would be easily detected.
Ahh and, ★ would you please read wikibooks:Ada_Programming/Tasking and tell me what exactly is missing from a task type to qualify for processes (running programs) as entities (data). (Of course I am a language advocate as well - but at least I add references to my claims) --Krischik T 07:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start from Scratch 

message: I think the warning at the bottom of the article is sufficient - whoever put in all those stupid "Citation required" tags really made a mess of the article.
: yes and no. When I added them I was hoping that language advocates would add prove that there language is as cool as they claim it is. I was wrong - with a very few exceptions language advocates they leave it by unproven claims... --Krischik T 18:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could we reduce the clutter? 

message: I think Prolog is a programming language as well. Am I wrong?
--Comptrol (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: but is it a Multiparadigm programming language? --Krischik T 07:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is Prolog 

message: This article seems to be an exercise in over classification of what are, in many ways, fuzzy concepts.  Since no one agrees 100% what qualifies as an OOP language, how do you classify a language that is only partly OO (by some particular definition)?  Does this count as supporting 2.5 paradigms?  Surely whether a given language supports a given paradigm (whatever that means exactly) is a matter of degree?  It's not a yes/no question.  So counting the supported paradigms and classify languages according to the number of paradigms seems like compounding the sin.  Richard Dawkins has a term for what this article seems to be attempting - he calls it the 'Tyranny of the Discontinuous Mind' (i.e. searching for hard and fast boundaries where they don't actually exist in reality).
All the above said, doesn't Aspect-oriented programming count as a paradigm?  What about Metaprogramming?
:I wish you had signed that post, but you're correct - this article is vastly over-complicating things with it's classification of "paradigms".  Especially so with the list of programming languages by number of paradigms.  I don't know nearly enough of the programming languages on this list to rewrite it though, and I expect almost everyone is in the same position (how many people know every language on this list well enough to edit it?).  I think wiping the entire list of languages by paradigm and writing the lead so that the article explains what a multi-paradigm approach is, and why so many modern languages use it (with a few examples from popular languages) would be a good idea.  --CalPaterson (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I partly agree. Instead of "wiping the entire list of languages by paradigm" make sure that you add this material to Comparison of programming languages. Ghettoblaster (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over Classification? 

message: I am not sure how to "officially" suggest a merger, but I think this topic should redirect to Programming paradigm.  Since pretty much every general purpose language can be classified as "multiparadigm," the majority of this article amounts to trivia.  The list of languages could be completely deleted or perhaps copied to Comparison of programming languages, as suggested above.  Since the list is mostly unsourced, incomplete, and even controversial, I would go with deletion.  Anyone agree?  Disagree?  Maghnus (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a merger proposal on your behalf. I agree that this article, stand alone, makes little sense with its current content. Diego (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I second the notion to merge this with Programming paradigm. Just based off the information listed at Programming paradigm you can cleary understand what multi-paradigm is and a few examples are even listed. If their is a true need of a full descriptive list of paradigms, then we can create a new wiki called "List of programming paradigm". --Richard (talk) 05:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I third the motion and believe both articles are in need of a rewrite, programming paradigm containing more valid substance although it too is somewhat confused and on shaky ground. This could be, of course, because raising some dubious programming 'styles' to paradigm status might be  premature !! - 'Programming dogmas' might be another appropriate article with sections on polymorhpic dogmas, encapsulated dogmas et al.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdakin (talk • contribs) 05:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes this page is a mess all along. I am the only one who added any <ref> tags and the rest is an unfounded race for who got the most paradigms for his / her favourite language --Krischik T 07:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't see why this had its own article in the first place, merge it.--Digipatd 02:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Merge the concept, but keep this as a separate list, just as i did with List of object-oriented programming languages. Pcap ping 06:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see there is consensus above, so I'm going to do it. Pcap ping 06:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Programming paradigm]]? 

message: Pipeline? Really? A paradigm? I admit I don't know PowerShell, but I find it hard to believe that connecting one program's output to another program's input could really be called a "paradigm". I can pipe a C executable and a Perl script together. Does this make those two languages "supporting the pipeline paradigm", too? Is there more to this "pipelining" of PowerShell that sets it apart from that? Or is it an attempt to get PowerShell's "paradigm count" bumped? -- DevSolar (talk) 08:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows PowerShell revisited 

message: Programming newb here. Procedural programming is discussed in these here-linked articles as a Programming paradigm, but it's not listed here. If it's mostly absent here because (confusingly) in this article it's considered a language type and not a paradigm, then it should be removed from Python (and Python moved to 3-paradigm?). Or if it is a paradigm, Python can't be the only language that qualifies. Thx, "alyosha" (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procedural: as paradigm?, only Python? 

message: According to Higher-Order Perl, Perl also supports Declarative Programming and other things, so why is it marked as "No"? It would also be a good source for citations, as it is a free (online available) book. --Athaba (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perl 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racket_%28programming_language%29 
Multi-paradigm: functional, procedural (imperative), modular, object-oriented, logic, reflective, meta-programming  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BearnHeart (talk • contribs) 19:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racket added 

message: ===D has support for metaprogramming===
D has support for metaprogramming via template metaprogramming and string mixins. Can we make the adequate changes to reflect this.
I have wrote up the following draft on my user page here
See http://dlang.org/template.html and http://dlang.org/mixin.html
Added these changes on 16th of November 2015 Machinistprogrammer (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  D Language 

message: D has support for metaprogramming via template metaprogramming and string mixins. Can we make the adequate changes to reflect this.
I have wrote up the following draft on my user page here
See http://dlang.org/template.html and http://dlang.org/mixin.html
Added these changes on 16th of November 2015 Machinistprogrammer (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: D has support for metaprogramming

message: How about adding Go_(programming_language)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Long.mindworker (talk • contribs) 16:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  GoLang 

message: F# and Elixir come to mind. Are idiomatic |> or composable . enough?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Mormon (talk • contribs) 04:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't several of the languages qualify as 'pipeline'? 

message: What is counted as a paradigm? Only the once in the table? Or should we count also "other paradigms", which are not specified/linked?Anonym~dewiki (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  number of paradigms 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Comparison of multi-paradigm programming languages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130119045517/http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/snapshot/scala/dataflow.html to http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/snapshot/scala/dataflow.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified