Talk:Scripting language

message: Scripting languages seem to begin as simple command languages, NOT as or even with the goal of becoming programming languages.  The go from being simply a command set to scripting once it becomes useful to replay them from a file, and occasionally grow to the point that someone starts pointing at them and calling them languages instead of command sets.
The Bourne shell is a great example of a simple wrapper around some basic commands and the ability to call other programs that became scriptable (i.e. useful in files) at which point people wrote scripts with it.   No one in his right mind would have called sh a full programming language back then, and even applying that label to its modern derivatives (bash, etc) seems excessive.
Hence, I'd say the a scripting language is a command set that offers utility in scripts, but is typically not considering to be a programming language, generally lacks any compiler, and further is often only useful through that which it was designed to manipulate, whether it being Unix commands, some hardware device a given scripting language was designed to control, some embedded subsystem like a graphics package plugin (GIMP, Maya, etc) and so on.
In cases where a "real" programming language is being used for scripting, the differentiator might be whether the normal implementation is being utilized, or some specifically mutated variant.  For example, if one can compile normal C modules using gcc and then make them be addons for a software package (say, a graphic package plugin), then that isn't a scripting language - it's a actual language.   One the other hand, a C-like language which compiles to some funky bytecode to work inside a specific application's context could be legitimately called a "C-like scripting language".
So essentially scripting languages are context-targeting command sets which might resemble some real computing language, but which for some reason really aren't.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siodhe (talk • contribs) 06:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that many scripting languages are 'wrappers' and incomplete languages in the sense that many or all scripts written in them rely on external software for their functionality, or are written specifically to access that software's functionality; but it rarely happens that they are just 'sets of commands': we call them languages specifically because they have nontrivial syntax and semantics such as while and if constructs that make a language Turing complete. Rp (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All languages "rely on external software for their functionality."  If you want to read a file in a C program you don't program to the bare hardware (although this has been done), you call the OS to do it for you.  It's a matter of degree.  As for "context-targeting command sets which might resemble some real computing language, but which for some reason really aren't" this is hard to support too.  "Real" programs are written in scripting languages, they're not just DOS .bat files.  Being interpreted is a big part, but BASIC, for example isn't (as far as I know) considered to be or used as a scripting language.  Maybe look at the edge cases. Peter Flass (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Neither Perl nor Rexx began as a simple command language. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Scripting language is a term about purpose and differentiation 

message: I would split the extension language from script language: the term might not be defined and clear.
While the porpoise here is clear, I indeed would not use it in the definition of scripting language.
In some cases it is the same but in other it might not be understood in the same way.
More over: I would go in the direction of reducing the number of terms.
Because extension language is not that used I will not promote it.
We might even argue about the meaning.
Or: extension language is an hoax.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.172.104 (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: the term scripting language is used for languages that are rarely used as extension languages for applications: one of its meanings is as a synonym for interpreted language.  So the first sentences should be changed to express this. Rp (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Scripting Language: is not an extension language

message: A Scripting Language is a programming language which assumes the existence of an interpreter (in contrast to a compiler) being
this the OS (Operating System) itself or any other application, program or dedicated interface.
The simplest (or basic) interpreter is typically the OS which intrinsically define the programming language via a commands interface.
Historically the OS scripting "language" (not always a programming language: check for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_110)
was used to define the "environment" (variables, libraries) for the Operating System and eventually send sequential command to the OS.
The most famous scripts are probably: autoexec.bat and .profile. The first started for windows(TM) and the second for unix machines.
The possibility to interact with the OS via a pseudo language (at the beginning there was not a programming language: just a sequence
of commands [more like a process control]) created the concept of scripting.
It is clear that the first scripts were done only to facilitate repeated actions. Still, at the beginning, they would be used
only to set up the environment.
At present there is not a real definition for a scripting language with the exception that there should exist an interpreter.
In particular there should exists a shell like (ksh,sh,dos) interpreter. The interpreter is a line by line interface to the
programming language. In these framework i can cite old style scripting languages like:ksh, sh, bash, bsh, csh, tcsh, dos.
But also the newcomers like: perl, php, python, expect. (ruby: I have no clue about). They all present a command line interpreter.
I should not forget: sed and awk. They are just in the middle.
I guess it fits here, indeed, the full class of application specific scripting languages. For example LabTalk is used within
originlab applications, they even have OriginC (not scripting).
As a bottom line:  a scripting language is the one for which it exists a line by line interpreter and it also allows
automation of repeated tasks.
:Both Perl and Rexx started as real programming languages and both are considered to be scripting languages. Neither has a line by line interpreter. Rexx has a compiler. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A personal observation:  "I know what a scripting language is, I just can't describe it." BMJ-pdx (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Scripting: Definition - an idea

message: I think that one of the major reason for scripting, as main tool, came with HTTP and dynamic CGI.
Before there was shells (ksh/sh) and "real small" scripts in sed, awk, expect (proly later) and perl (probably the first scripting language from an historical and classical point of view.) Today it is difficult to distinguish: python will not exists without hard coded optimized
c (other languages) libraries. Shell is still fully interpreted but it is normal to call other programs within the shell.
It would be difficult to define which program the script is referring to. Considering that we can do a full independent program in shell
if we try hard.
It can be how we deploy results:
input -> script -> interpreter -> results
script/code -> compiler -> (input coming in) program - > results
But if we get again the web applications were you need a bit of dynamics, I am not sure that with cashes and the like (time events)
we would be able to make a difference: probably a pure C code in the right application will perform faster with an optimized compiler.
Portability within machines is also not an issue: For the bytecode you need a VM: just as you need a compiler or an interpreter.
So, to conclude.
In the old time scripting was more related to automation. i.e. repetition of tasks. In this framework it was not important the
language but eventually the possibility to adapt and change the script on the fly, and of course fully compatible with the OS.
In the new times we refer more often to scripting as the embedded HTML code in order to generate dynamic pages. Here indeed
you might need portability with web servers..
I personally would stick to the repetition of OS duties: get logrotate for example, or some printing preprocessing.
Or in my case the list of stuff I put in the cron: In a process to be executed daily I do try to stick to bare shell:
i.e. it is fully working just on the OS APIs/commands.
I use python daily and I would have serious difficulties to call it scripting, I use normally optimized math libraries:
without python would not be used. Probably it is better the tcl/tk paradigm.
BTW:
I think that the most famous script in windows machines was: autoexec.bat (typically located in c:/)
For unix machines, I am old but not that old, I guess: .profile, .shrc and the like (in skeleton?).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.172.104 (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that not all Python programming would often be called scripting, but short, one-file programs in Python are often called scripts, and writing them is called scripting. Try Google to find plenty of examples. A script, to many, is just a short program in one file. Rp (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Scripting language were popular long before the WWW, e.g., Rexx in 1979. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I whole-heartedly agree. I was using csh/tcsh (back when sh was still relatively primitive) long before the Internet or CGI, to automate system maintenance.  BMJ-pdx (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Web and Scripting: How they became famous

message: Shouldn't the title named simply "script language"? It may be misnomer but more recognized I guess. -- Taku 02:10 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)
:Yes, this article should be named "scripting language". That article currently redirects here. A while ago somebody added "programming language" to the titles of a bunch of articles. The best way to change that would be to delete the redirect page so this page can be moved cleanly. So, if any admin wants to do that... -- Merphant
* I agree, so I moved it. Not an admin tho so history will look weird. Elfguy 20:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title: Script(ing) language?

message: Perhaps the vague difference between a scripting and general purpose language is merely that it is possible to write and run a "script" without any command-line compilers, makefiles, or other "developer tools". For example, Scheme48 is a runtime for the general purpose language Scheme, but scsh is a scripting language using a hacked Scheme48 runtime that supports the "#!" shell syntax. By the way, Mondrian is a strongly typed "scripting" language. Also, the page uses "scripting" in the definition of scripting language, which is circular and not terribly illuminating.
--Anon 19:42, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work :-) -- Arvindn 05:19, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Rexx better fits your definition of Embedded extension languages.  There's a well-defined interface for imbedding it in an application.  XEDIT, of course, is the model, but it's used in lots of other apps also. Peter Flass (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Scripting vs General p-languages

message: (Sorry for the crude formatting, I'm a Wikipedia novice.)
A bunch of us at META Group have been discussing this distinction, so I thought I'd post some of my thoughts here:
Ousterhout (http://home.pacbell.net/ouster/scripting.html) in his article on scripting, which I highly recommend reading thoroughly, nails the sence of "gluing" that distinguishes system programming languages (SPLs) from scripting languages (SLs): "System programming languages were designed for building data structures and algorithms from scratch, starting from the most primitive computer elements such as words of memory. In contrast, scripting languages are designed for gluing: they assume the existence of a set of powerful components and are intended primarily for connecting components together."
It is this distinction between "building from scratch from primitive elements" and "building from already built-up components" that is fundamental. Yes, you can add a rich library or framework to an SPL (think Unix libraries or MSFT MFC), but then you are still stuck with a language (eg C++) with a set of powerful but complicated capabilities for "building from scratch from primitive elements". If all one wants to do is to exploit the rich library of already developed data structures and algorithms (DSAs), and does not want to add any more, then the SPL is overkill.
Flex and Flash are perfect examples of this. The geniuses at MM have already created the DSAs for UI building and animation, respectively--Flex and Flash just let you compose them. If you want to design new DSAs for UI building and animation, then don't use Flex and Flash.
In short, SLs are designed for composing existing DSAs for a specific use. SPLs are designed for defining new DSAs for general use.
I also think references to scripting languages just being for automating what one would do at a keyboard are obsolete. They are used for an incredibly wide variety of uses. In fact, given this definitional distinction between "composition" vs "definition", I would claim that BPEL (Business Process Execution Language) is a scripting language for scripting together existing Web services.
:It should be noted that Ousterhout didn't claim that his "dichotomy" partitioned the set of programming languages. I quote: 
::There are many other attributes of programming languages besides strength of typing and the level of programming, and there are many interesting languages that can't be characterized cleanly as a system programming language or a scripting language. For example, the Lisp family of languages lies somewhere between scripting and system programming, with some of the attributes of each. Lisp pioneered concepts such as interpretation and dynamic typing that are now common in scripting languages, as well as automatic storage management and integrated development environments, which are now used in both scripting and system programming languages. 
:I have to wonder if what Ousterhout is really describing when he classes C, C++ and Java as "systems", Perl and Tcl as "scripting", and Lisp as "neither" is not the languages' positive features but their deficiencies. His "systems" languages are ones that lack powerful tools for abstraction -- so their users lean on external scripting and macro packages. His "scripting" languages are ones that nobody has written good native-code compilers for yet -- so they are slow; in order to get good performance you have to use modules written in compiled languages like C.
:But Lisp is strangely in the middle -- modern Lisp systems (like SBCL for instance) are fast and compiled, but have powerful abstraction tools. So they don't fit either category. Hmm. --FOo 04:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, good stuff. My primary concern had been the original sentence, which was just a self-referencing statement, "Languages that are used specifically or designed primarily for scripting are called scripting languages". By "abstraction", I guess I was more or less thinking about what you said, working with "pre-existing components," etc. (And I confess to the terrible crime of having only skimmed over most of the discussion on this page prior to editing the article, sorry). AdmN 03:01, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scripting vs. Programming 

message: "In most modern systems, the latter case is very seldom recommendable, since one or more suitable script languages is usually available."
Of course it doesn't make any difference, unless you're porting the platform between systems and need a virtual machine to go along with it.  But how many platforms really need virtual machines?  Almost any virtual machine, anyway, can be shrunk so that a good inter-platform compiler will have no trouble building its scripts.  --VKokielov 15:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The essential advantages of writing scripts in C are two: speed of execution and the absolution of the headache you get when you write your own compilers.  A reliable architecture of abstraction - COM, for instance - allows the house to implement a reliable communications interface.  I also see two drawbacks, viz.: compiled languages run amok, and end-users don't usually have compilers.  Neither is an obstacle when the system in question is to be scripted in-house.  --VKokielov 21:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  recommended 

message: ".. JavaScript is a very influential standard, supported by virtually every browser on the market."
This line is referring to JavaScript as a Scripting Language, however the name of the language is confusing. JavaScript is in fact a full 
programming language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.179.250.255 (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  JavaScript as a Programming language not a Scripting language 

message: Shouldn't XSLT be listed under both (or neither) of the "Web programming languages" subcategories?  According to the XSLT article, "XSLT processor implementations fall into two main categories: server-side, and client-side."
Most modern browsers can apply XSL transformations to XML documents, so it seems inaccurate to have it listed only under the server-side category.  -- Krilnon 01:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  XSLT listed as a server-side scripting language 

message: For instance: MTASC  is an ActionScript 2.0 Compiler. It compiles an ActionScript Source Code to SWF ByteCodes. No Just In Time interpretation. Fırat KÜÇÜK 20:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Scripting" really describes a purpose to which the language is put, rather than an implementation strategy. Given a language specification, a language can be implemented in many ways, including an interpreter, a JIT compiler, or a traditional compiler. --FOo 21:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ActionScript#Scripting_Language.3F : Same discussion. ActionScript is more similar to Java than JavaScript. Fırat KÜÇÜK 04:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is ActionScript a scripting language? 

message: We can use scripting inside a Java Server Pages but JSP is not a scripting language. JSP code is compiled by JSP compiler. Infact a JSP file is a compiled Java Servlet. Fırat KÜÇÜK 05:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Java Server Pages a Scripting Language? 

message: Isn't the "clarification" in the into more muddying the waters than clarifying them ?
It claims that scripts are distinguished from programs in that programs consits of ones and zeroes. What then, pray tell, does scripts consist of ?
And is a "script" any program written in a "scripting language" ? If so, does this mean a completely normal GUI spreadsheet-program is a "script" if it happens to be written in Python ?
Is C a "scripting language" if anyone cares to sit down and write an interpreter for it ? I'm sure it's been done repeatedly already...
I think the next paragraph is much better. A script is a script because of what function it performs, not because of what language it happens to be coded in. And a scripting-language is one used for creating scripts. Which yes, means that all languages are sometimes used as scripting-languages. --Eivind Kjørstad 13:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  zeroes and ones 

message: "But basically, scripting is not a technical term. When we call something a scripting language, we're primarily making a linguistic and cultural judgment, not a technical judgment.", Programming is Hard, Let's Go Scripting... by Larry Wall. --mj41 (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe scripting is not a perfect term for a language, but for an activity it is a precise description. Manorainjan (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

text: Sort of agree. Scripting is a subjective view. There is a wide-grey line between what is a script and what is something other than a script. For example, a Python script that's 10 lines long I would call a script without hesitation. If I write an application in Python that involves multiple directories of files, I'd argue that is not a script. Somewhere between those two extremes lines a diving line. ... The activity of scripting has the same fuzziness. Stevebroshar (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scripting Not a technical term 

message: Although low knowledge + high boldness is a common recipe for disaster on Wikipedia, I've ignorantly + boldly added Linden Scripting Language to the list of Application-specific languages. If this is a problem, somebody please fix it. Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Linden Scripting Language]] 

message: Scripting engine redirect to scripting language, though the term is not explained. Can someone give more information about it? Thanks, --Abdull (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scripting engine? 

message: The article currently says "scripting languages are nearly always embedded in the applications they control".  I think this statement only applies to some of the types of scripting languages.  And I don't see how the reference added here supports the claim.  Open4D (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted it. It is plainly false. Softarch Jon (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Scripting languages are nearly always embedded in the applications they control" 

message: I had a very quick look to the comments above.
Scripting has definitely an historical background in IT.
Indeed, language on its own is also historical but in the new IT era got
two meanings: programming it and defining it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_110.
I think that there is an oxymoron in the terms. Actually this page should not exists.
At present I am even not sure if the probably equivalent: "script languages" makes any
better meaning.
My opinion is to quit this discussion and move it somewhere else. (The content is indeed
valuable, so we should find a moving strategy)
"Scripting language" is a contradiction in terms. Scripting assumes a language on its own
and the term scripting cannot be a language. This page should be removed in favor of:
(out of my mind, no check)
- Scripting
- Operating System (You might be surprised but the old OS was not able to do anything: scripting was a must)
- Interpreted_vs_compiled
The rest if philosophy, which can stay, eventually or speculation. We do not speculate.
Sorry, I do not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.172.104 (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nah ya, History and sex appeal! Scripting language is an ossimoron 

message: As additional reason to cancel the topic:
No programmer, at least not me, will ever use such a term.
So we do not want to create any additional term in IT.
It is already a place where terms comes up like mushrooms.
You do not need an extra one.
B
F  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.172.104 (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? People do use the term. You're not using it does not affect whether it is a thing. ... Also, I'm fine using the term even though it is fundamentally flawed. I am not a serious person? ouch that hurts coming from you 84.75.172.104 :) Stevebroshar (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  No serious person will say: Scripting language 

message: C# and JavaScript could both be considered programming languages, but does how the code run determine whether or not it is a scripting language?
These two languages could quite possibly be considered a whole different type of language. JavaScript runs on a Java Virtual Machine and C# runs on the .NET Framework. These both could be considered "Layers" that the code operates on. 
C# manipulates the .NET Framework, while JavaScript manipulates the Virtual Machine. In a sense these are both programming languages as the VM and .NET aren't programs, but code that tells the OS how to operate. These two languages can also be considered scripting languages as they script how the VM or .NET operates. This implies a new type of language that could possibly be described as a hybrid language.
This also implies the following argument: If code is run on a Framework or VM, then the Operating System could also be classified as a Framework and ALL programming languages are then scripting languages. The VM and Framework simulate the OS; thus, the OS is the "Framework" that the language scripts or manipulates. This implies that there is no solid programming language, but the scripting of events inside the Operating System's framework. Tuxmascot (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean Java, not JavaScript. It seems strange to say that they script how the VM operates and I think this is because the VM doesn't do anything useful without them, it only exists as a basis to allow such programs to be written - unlike, for instance, scripting for applications such as AutoCAD or Microsoft Office.  I think languages such as Unix shells, Perl, Python and Ruby are better examples of the 'hybrid' languages you have in mind. Rp (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

text: All correct. Classifying languages as scripting or any other category in List of programming languages by type is almost valueless. Much effort has been spent to classify languages, when IMO it's a waste of time. Stevebroshar (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I feel this discussion stems from an inadequate introduction in the article.  I have attempted to improve it. Rp (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. The issue is the article title. Should be 'script'. Stevebroshar (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  C# vs. JavaScript as Hybrid Languages 

message: I attempted to read the article and I might have missed something.  I would like to see something about disabling scripting and what that actually means for the layperson as I am fairly (ok quite) ignorant about programming.  I do know how to disable scripting on my computer, but I don't know how that will affect my internet useage if I do that.  I do use IE and I like it, so comments like 'use Firefox' doesn't cut it.  Is there an article that describes what disabling scripting does already on Wikipedia?  Please let me knwo.  Oh, and there was news about disabling Java.  I decided to use the 'prompt me' option.  Will that still leave me open to hackers or am I protected?Mylittlezach (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid your concerns are too specific to be dealt with in this article. The scripting you're referring to is one (important) application of scripting, namely the use of a scripting language in a web browser, while this article is about scripting in general. Your concern is about security implications of allowing such scripting. It would be worthwhile to include a discussion of these things into the article, but your questions would still be too specific for Wikipedia. Many other sites offer help with such specific questions. Rp (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disabling Scripting? 

message: It appears this article intends to go deep into the world of scripting and in this attempt a person wanting to understand this concept does not get a focused introduction.  The article tries to be so detailed that eventually the basic concept of what a script is does not appear in focus and in-front.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayumadehrafti (talk • contribs) 10:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: How can it be improved? Rp (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is unfocused 

message: The attempt to define a class of languages called scripting languages fails. Look at this many years long discussion with so many unresolved issues!
If one tries to explain what a script is, the result will be much better. One can go into detail explaining the difference between a script which You often find in HTML-pages and another type of script which You run for a single purpose and another one which gets started regularly by external events and cron jobs.
One can differentiate it from macro and program.
Then this page will become useful. And since hordes of wolves will start howling if this page will be turned into "Script", it is better to crate a new one and step by step migrate content. Manorainjan (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure the present article is so bad. What is wrong with it? In IT, we have to work with the terms we have, as fuzzy as they are; 'scripting language' is a common term, as ambiguous as it is, so it must be defined here. How can the article be improved? If you see an outline for a different article that would provide a much clearer explanation, why don't you post it here? The types of scripts you mention are covered in the article, but only in general terms. Perhaps it would be good to add a few specific uses of scripting languages with examples? Rp (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

text: Agree. The term 'scripting language' and every other category on List of programming languages by type are almost valueless. What scripting language means is: the language used to write a script where script means a relatively short and simple sequence of instructions (to automate...). Theoretically, I can use any language to write a script. There may not exist a tool today where a particular language can be used for scripting, but someone could write that tool! I've used a C interpreter even though most consider C compiled. I can write a complex application with Python that I would argue is not a script. I think all languages fall into all categories. If we're going to talk about implementations that exist, then the story is different. But I think trying to document all existing implementations is a foolhardy and low value goal. ... yes scripting language is a term in the world that people use. But, just because something is a term does not mean it should have an article. I suggest that 'scripting language' should redirect to 'script'. So, yeah rename this page. I think the redirect will prevent howling. ... and yes, same should done for every other xxx language article. Stevebroshar (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus on Script and Scripting! 

message: Java,c,c++,python,basic 103.167.233.41 (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the example of high level language? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Fedfed2 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age

message: Is the term scripting language limited to scripts that control other software, or does it include languages like Logo that are used to control hardware?
This question was prompted by a recent edit that added the word software. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the edit ought to be reverted. No doubt there are scripting languages to control hardware. What's worse is that neither formulation covers all uses of the term scripting language. Perl and Python are scripting languages, but must Perl and Python programs do not control or automate systems, they convert input to output or constitute standalone interactive applications or they do whatever else software can be used to do. Rp (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You are pondering what a script is. Me too. IMO not all Python code is script. I've used sophisticated GUI applications written in Python. That is hardily what I think of a script. I think the hallmark of a script is that it's relatively simple; has little branching; probably no multiprocessing. And it generally automates an otherwise manual process. It need not drive an application per se or hardware, but it does operations that otherwise a person would do in an less automatic way. ... Therefore I think script is subjective. ... Is Python a scripting language? I guess so since you can write a relatively simple list of instructions to automate an otherwise manual process. But I don't think of Python as primarily a scripting language. It's a powerful, capable language one can use to write almost any application. Calling it a scripting language is selling it short. I think of a scripting language as something that's so limited that it can't be used to write more sophisticated apps. For example, Windows batch (command) is a scripting language. It's basically not possible to write a non-trivial app with it. I don't think it's useful to put Python in the same category as Windows batch. ... I think my point is that you are both right. A script can control hardware and a script need not control an application. The article should embody those ideas. Stevebroshar (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of article 

message: What are the criteria for the notable environments section? Are scriptable games really more notable than:
*Command lines
*debuggers
*Dump readers
*Editors
*ISPF on IBM mainframes
*Web browsers
Even for games, aren't there more notable examples? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I find such lists to be low value. I would prefer deleting the list than adding items. But, it seems others like lists. Stevebroshar (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

text: But, yeah as an example of a scripting environment, computer games is less common. In general examples are a slippery slope> Once you mention one example, one can always ask: what about that other one? And with scripting there are a zillion examples one could use. ... I think the gaming one was from a gamer who loves that environment. There is too much detail ;) ... I also think there is too many languages listed with too much info about each. ... and it's odd that the first thing under characteristics is that Java is _not_ an example! ... IMO the article needs an overhaul to focus on important things and drop less important stuff. Stevebroshar (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I deleted that paragraph about notable environments. It adds little/no value IMO. What environment does scripting _not_ apply to? ... spoiler alert: none. Stevebroshar (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable environments?