Talk:Programming language/Archive 3

message: If we want this to be a Featured Article (and who doesn't?) we will need references, about one per section.  If you can please try to put references on new material, and look for references for the material that is already there.  Ideogram 05:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  references 

message: Any opinions on trimming the history section since there is now a separate article that duplicates it?  Ideogram 12:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with that idea.  The child/sibling article seems to cover all the details (but we should resolve the merge notice).  In my opinion, two or three narrative paragraphs without further subsections could give a broad sense of the history of programming languages, with the details fleshed out in the child article.  But as above, let's make sure there's consensus on this before chopping. LotLE×talk 18:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  history section 

message: I'm not sure what you mean by "can be performed using an interface which uses only the variable inputs as free parameters"?  Ideogram 05:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Command line with inputs? Jaxad0127 06:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  More general than that -- when you write a program some things are going to always be the same, and some things are free parameters that you need to pass in.  For instance if you're writing an email using some (non-command-line) program, the recipeient, the text, etc. are free parameters, but how to talk to the IMAP server, or the cute little annoying graphics and sounds are fixed -- you don't need to respecify them.  kraemer 10:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This phrase is hard to understand.  You need to word it so that someone who doesn't know what a programming language is can understand it.  Ideogram 09:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  purpose edits 

message: Again, I do feel this section is weak and want to discuss it.  My problems with it are noted above.  Certainly I prefer that the definitions listed be sourced, we will never achieve featured article status if they aren't.  LotLE, you say there are "good and relevant concepts in there" can you list what you think should be kept and what can be cut?  How do you think my concerns above should be addressed?  Everyone else please comment as well.  Ideogram 08:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  definitions section discussion 

message: Actually, this thread also got me thinking about Postscript.  It's sort of a mantra to point out that Postscript is Turing-complete (since many people think of it as "just a page-layout description").  I don't know PS well, but thinking on it slightly more, I realize that it's "stack based"... which would seem to make it formally a push-down automaton not a Turing-machine.  I can't find anything in the Postscript article; can anyone tell me in 20 words how PS achieves random-access rather than a strict FILO stack only?
:I'm pretty damn sure Postscript is Turing-complete.  I've never programmed it and I have no citations, but I'd advise you not to waste your time on that score.  Ideogram 18:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I'm pretty sure it is too since I've heard it so often.  I'm just wondering "how".  I'm pretty sure whatever then answer is, it's something pretty simple: like "The so-and-so command accesses a data structure in a random rather than stack way" (or along those lines).  I don't want this digression in this article, it's just for my edification. LotLE×talk 19:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: But along those lines, I'm pretty sure those programmable calculators with a stack-based syntax are also limited to push-down computation abilities, but I think it reasonable to call the languages used on programmable calculators "programming languages". LotLE×talk 18:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverse Polish Lisp as used in HP calculators is Turing-complete, modulo memory size.  Ideogram 18:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it? I never had one of those calculators, nor looked closely at the language they use.  But are you sure of that? Can you do generalized recursion on them? (modulo memory size) LotLE×talk 19:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I haven't programmed them, and have no citations, but I have friends who were into it, and it is called Reverse Polish Lisp after all.  Ideogram 19:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ramblings on languages and their formal power 

message: "The combination of the language definition, the program, and the program's inputs fully specify the external behavior that occurs when the program is 'executed'."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all language definitions have sections where they say "if you do this the resulting behavior is unspecified"?  Should we mention this?  Ideogram 09:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While your statement is true this is an article about programming languages, so they ought to get a mention.  In fact your sentence really belong in the article on programs.  There is quite a bit of the Purpose section that would probably go better in the Program article.  Derek farn 10:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please elaborate.  Ideogram 10:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Which bit requires eloboration?   The Purpose section could read "The purpose of programming languages is to enable programs to be written."  A rather pointless statement, but then (as you know) I have never been a fan of this subsection  Derek farn 16:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish we can go back to the list of topics covered that I provided earlier and go over them one by one.  We can also consider alternative titles for the subsection.  Ideogram 16:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fully specified behavior 

message: I'm not sure about the phrase "semantically meaningless".  I don't understand what it means in formal semantics, since I don't understand formal semantics, but if you are using the term "semantically" in a general sense then the programmer certainly has a meaning in mind (assuming it is not an error).
In assembly language the results are usually not unspecified since it has no types and everything is just bits.  The results depend on the representation used by the assembly language which is certainly visible to the assembly language programmer.
Forth is an untyped language; Forth programmers wouldn't consider such operations "meaningless" with "unspecified results".  Ideogram 09:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  untyped and typed 

message: That's a very good point, anonymous editor at 213.41.137.29.  You should create an account and join us.  Ideogram 17:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unicode 

message: There's some discussion of this issue at User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters#verifiability, not truth that you might want to read.  If we want to discuss this issue in earnest we should probably take it to the Village Pump.  Ideogram 20:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure the meta-debate is necessary.  It is verifiable that there exist non-Turing complete languages in the literature (some with implementations); it is also veriable that there is a noted absence of modern production general-purpose languages which aren't Turing-complete.  The latter point is hard to verify, as "proving" it would require an enumeration of all such languages (whereas a single example suffices in the former case).  At any rate, I think we're presently debating minutaie, when there are much bigger fish to fry in this article.  --EngineerScotty 21:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No no you're missing my point.  The definition I'm pushing is verifiable, so far all of this debate has missed that point.  The actual facts as to which languages are Turing-complete or not is completely irrelevant.  None of you pushing the other definition have verified the definition.  It has nothing to do with the facts you are asserting.  Ideogram 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As for the bigger fish to fry, I have the last post on just about all of them, but it's this one that everyone responded to.  Ideogram 21:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  verifiability, not truth 

message: Jaxad, I don't know if that merge was a good idea.  It's bound to confuse anyone coming upon the discussion later trying to figure out what happened.
Ah, who am I kidding.  No one is bored enough to wade through all that crap.  Ideogram 00:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I did that was because the discussion was split between two topics. SOmeone looking at just one wouldn't get everything. Jaxad0127 00:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's ok, not a big deal.  Thanks for trying to help.  Ideogram 00:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jaxad's merge