Talk:Programming language/Archive 1

message: This entire section needs to be rewritten from scratch. This includes this topic plus those for the various languages and language concept articles. This is going to be a big project but I think its important. Computer programming is too much a part of modern life to be half covered in an encyclopedia so I have to agree with Ark. Rlee0001 05:25 Jul 27, 2002 (PDT)
On another note: I would limit the list of programming languages here to just the main languages and not all the dialects. For example, there are something like 15-20 dialects of BASIC listed in the BASIC programming language page. Instead of listing all of them, one link for the entire language would suffice. If the user want's a dialect, he/she can stiff get to it from the BASIC page. Same goes for all the languages. Further, I fail to see why people are listing such obscure languages and dialects in an encyclopedia. Some languages have historical or technological significance. Others are just current brandnames for half-written freeware with a source forge page and no user base. Should "Applesoft BASIC" really get its own topic? What did it do to revolutionize the language? Did it have a particularly large user base? Did it establish any conventions which are widely in use today? If not its probably not worthy of its own topic. Even worse is articles like ibasic. This is a basic interpreter for the mac. It has no historical significance: it was just created within the last year by an ameture developer who lives in some small cottage in sweden somewhere. It gets it's own encyclopedia article? Rlee0001
: I would propose the following:
* Make a (short) list of the most significant programming languages in history to put on the Programming language page. Annotate the list to make clear just why these language are mentioned.
* Make new article called List of programming languages, where every single progamming language can be mentioned, even dialects. This page can have several different orders, such as alphabetical, but also by type (functional, OO, etc.) or maybe even a history tree (there's a good book about the history of Programming Language by Sebasta, if I'm right, you may use that as a reference).
* For those dialects/spin-offs/implementations/ports of programming languages that are never going to be more than a single-sentence article: assemble on the page of the main article (BASIC programming language here) and make a section where you mention this or, when this is getting a long list, make it a separate article.
: That's what I think would be best. I'll try and see if I can help you with some of the work you're proposing to do; there are enough other people with knowledge about the subject around, so it should be possible to get something good out of this. Jeronimo 01:56 Jul 29, 2002 (PDT)
---
: BTW re: classifying languages by category, many languages belong in more than one category (constraint languages vs. rule-based languages vs. logic languages; and what about functional + OO languages like CLOS?)  Just to keep in mind. --k.lee
----
Wikibooks  has more about this subject:
Wikibooks:Programming languages bookshelf
 
Wikibooks  has more about this subject:
Computer programming
I have added two Wikibook links which allready have the texts which where suggested - The first link has an alphabetical and category list of languages - the 2nd link points to short introductions. I hope that helps. --Krischik T 16:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The link seems to be broken. -- Doradus 11:05, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to me as a red "edit" link rather than a regular blue link. -- Doradus 21:49, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  is there a reason that javascript isn't mention in the " Commonly Used Languages"? Also the link is red for me too ... reddi 21:58, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: Ok, the link works now. -- Doradus 00:03, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text:  I'm not sure I like the rewrite.  I haven't read the original to compare it, but the rewrite seems to be at a very awkward level of detail.  Anyone with enough background in the area to understand that writeup presumably doesn't need to read it.  For instance, the grammar example casually uses the terms "atom" and "symbol" which have very little meaning to those outside the field of computer programming.  In fact, the whole section on grammars would be better off in another article (say, on parsing). -- Doradus 00:10, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think that when I get to editing this article some more, I'll factor out several sections (e.g., the history of programming languages, and language semantics) into separate articles.  I'll keep your suggestion in mind.  k.lee 02:07, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: Well, I don't know about a consensus, but here are my reasons for wanting to rewrite the article.  First, the original article is rather disorganized.  Second, it leaps into issues like the representation of data without even saying why programming languages exist in terms that a layperson can understand.  Third, the original article does not maintain a sufficient distinction between the design of programming languages and their implementation.  Fourth, the article does not give enough attention to formal languages (actually, if you counted all the programming languages ever invented, I suspect formal languages would outnumber "practical" languages).  Finally, and most importantly, as the poster at the top of this talk page noted, the article does not give priority to a programming language's role in human-to-human communication --- which all language designers and software engineering researchers, not to mention most working programmers, understand as its most important role.  It's possible that you could alter the original article to fix these flaws, but the changes would be radical enough to resemble a ground-up rewrite anyway.  BTW I have reused sections from the original article where I thought appropriate.  k.lee 02:07, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Total rewrite

message: FYI: For some time I've been working on a ground-up rewrite of this article, because its current state does not make me happy.  It's not ready to go live, but I've finally posted my current draft in my user space. I welcome comment on my rewrite; also feel free to edit it directly.  It's taking me a long time to do the rewrite, but I plan to replace the entire current article eventually.  k.lee 02:28, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: The link seems to be broken. -- Doradus 11:05, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to me as a red "edit" link rather than a regular blue link. -- Doradus 21:49, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  is there a reason that javascript isn't mention in the " Commonly Used Languages"? Also the link is red for me too ... reddi 21:58, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: Ok, the link works now. -- Doradus 00:03, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text:  I'm not sure I like the rewrite.  I haven't read the original to compare it, but the rewrite seems to be at a very awkward level of detail.  Anyone with enough background in the area to understand that writeup presumably doesn't need to read it.  For instance, the grammar example casually uses the terms "atom" and "symbol" which have very little meaning to those outside the field of computer programming.  In fact, the whole section on grammars would be better off in another article (say, on parsing). -- Doradus 00:10, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think that when I get to editing this article some more, I'll factor out several sections (e.g., the history of programming languages, and language semantics) into separate articles.  I'll keep your suggestion in mind.  k.lee 02:07, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: Well, I don't know about a consensus, but here are my reasons for wanting to rewrite the article.  First, the original article is rather disorganized.  Second, it leaps into issues like the representation of data without even saying why programming languages exist in terms that a layperson can understand.  Third, the original article does not maintain a sufficient distinction between the design of programming languages and their implementation.  Fourth, the article does not give enough attention to formal languages (actually, if you counted all the programming languages ever invented, I suspect formal languages would outnumber "practical" languages).  Finally, and most importantly, as the poster at the top of this talk page noted, the article does not give priority to a programming language's role in human-to-human communication --- which all language designers and software engineering researchers, not to mention most working programmers, understand as its most important role.  It's possible that you could alter the original article to fix these flaws, but the changes would be radical enough to resemble a ground-up rewrite anyway.  BTW I have reused sections from the original article where I thought appropriate.  k.lee 02:07, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite of [[User:K.lee|k.lee]]

message: I would like to point out that the programming language list above misses Objective-C. Brent Gulanowski 15:54, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscellany

message: This Section Programming Language needs a total wash and be written from scracth. I volunteer myslef to devote some time to it. As I am new to this site and I am learning how to edit things so this section will be online within a week and with a new style
yana209 22:01, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
----
Some languages such as MUMPS and is called dynamic recompilation; emulators and other virtual machines exploit this technique for greater performance.
The clause before the semicolon isn't even complete. I'd fix it, but I'm not sure how exactly it should read. - Furrykef 15:17, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed. Ancheta Wis 11:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing From Scratch 

message: Should we realy have TIOBE Programming Community Index a link to a biased statistic without telling the readers in which way the index is flawed?
TIOBE's company statement is: We offer out-of-the-box solutions for the programming languages C, C++, C# and Java. — which oviously means they want those languages to look "good" on there statistic.
We should either explain he flaw or remove the link. Of course it is tricky to keep an NPOV when explaining an flaw in some way.
=== How is the Index flawed? ===
The search query '+"<language> programming" -tv -channel' is used to calculate the TPC Index.
Since you are probably reading this discussing because you are language advocate of some sort you can just google for '+"<language> programming" +tv +channel' with <language> beeing your favorite programming language - and then decide if those pages where rightfully excluded from the index.
My first google hit for my favorite language is: This association is aimed at promoting ADA programming language to the software... TV channel, producer) on any type of platform (OpenTV, MediaHighway). ... — rightfully excluded — don't think so.
: I removed the link, because you are not alloweds to link to your own website, not because I'm advocating some language. Please assume good faith. Cheers, --R.Koot 14:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm, there are several links to some of my pages on Wikipedia and Wikibooks. But they have never been added for vanity but only because they fit to the topic at hand. If it was any different the other contributers would have removed them. And in that respect I assume good faith. --Krischik 14:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

text: " As of 2005, the most popular languages generally are C and its derivative, C++."
While I suspect this is correct, I wonder how that author found out?
Is it even possible to rank programming languages according to "popularity"
(or in some other, more objective way) in a NPOV way?
If so, should we discuss "popularity" here in the programming language article,
or split it off into a popular programming language article?
See C2: Programming Language Usage Statistics.
--DavidCary 05:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  programming language popularity: the TIOBE Programming Community Index 

message: The search query '+"<language> programming" -tv -channel' is used to calculate the TPC Index.
Since you are probably reading this discussing because you are language advocate of some sort you can just google for '+"<language> programming" +tv +channel' with <language> beeing your favorite programming language - and then decide if those pages where rightfully excluded from the index.
My first google hit for my favorite language is: This association is aimed at promoting ADA programming language to the software... TV channel, producer) on any type of platform (OpenTV, MediaHighway). ... — rightfully excluded — don't think so.
: I removed the link, because you are not alloweds to link to your own website, not because I'm advocating some language. Please assume good faith. Cheers, --R.Koot 14:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm, there are several links to some of my pages on Wikipedia and Wikibooks. But they have never been added for vanity but only because they fit to the topic at hand. If it was any different the other contributers would have removed them. And in that respect I assume good faith. --Krischik 14:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is the Index flawed? 

message: The article "buffer overflow" currently claims that
:" As of 2005, the most popular languages generally are C and its derivative, C++."
While I suspect this is correct, I wonder how that author found out?
Is it even possible to rank programming languages according to "popularity"
(or in some other, more objective way) in a NPOV way?
If so, should we discuss "popularity" here in the programming language article,
or split it off into a popular programming language article?
See C2: Programming Language Usage Statistics.
--DavidCary 05:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  popular programming languages 

message: I have given User:K.lee two weeks to put up or give up with his rewrite.  His "rewrite" approach is anti-collaborative and he has been claiming that his rewrite is pending for over two years.  The "reqeustrewrite" template is only used for k.lee's claim for this article.  Wikipedia itself is not much older than that, which meas that no else has had a real and equal "turn" at this article since most of the work for the past two years will be lost when/if k.lee ever commits his version. Fplay 19:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: k.lee e-mails that that requstrewrite tag can be removed immediately. Fplay 20:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite has gone on long enough 

message: I propose the following definition, distilled from many sources throughout my education and career. This definition disposes of the qualitative assessments of languages, and focuses on quantifiable features:
;General purpose programming language :A general purpose programming language must meet three criteria: it must be Turing complete; it must have at least a prototype compiler/translator/interpreter implementation; it must be in use, or targetted for use, independent of any particular application software.
Examples of general purpose programming languages:
;C :Clearly satisfies all three requirements.
;Perl 6 :While its implementations are currently shakey at best, they exist, and it otherwise meets 1 & 3.
;JavaScript :It is rare that JavaScript is used outside of a Web browser, but it is used that way.
;PostScript :Implementations of PostScript as a stand-alone language have existed since the 80s, though they are rarely used outside of research and QA for embedded applications.
Examples of non-general purpose programming languages:
;SQL :Misses on item 1
;pseudocode :The typical pseudocode used in computer science books and papers has no formal implementation that I am aware of.
;vi macros :Misses on item 3 (yes, vi macros are Turing complete).
If we can agree to this definition, then we could agree to limit the scope of the article to such languages, and then create articles to collect the exceptions. -Harmil 13:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: SQL has no looping construct.  Ok, the support software behind it contains lots of loops, but that is not the same thing.
I have always thought of SQL as a programming language, but on reflection I guess it should be called something like a database query language and along with markup language's not be included in the list of programming languages.  The SQL Standard is not maintained by SC22, the ISO committee responsible for programming languages.
Derek farn 13:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you had a look at PL/SQL? Krischik T 13:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SQL is not Turing complete 

message: I just removed the following comments from the end of "History of programming languages" (reformatted to shorten lines), as their presence (with newlines in between) was creating excessive vertical whitespace, and in any case they really belonged here. Hairy Dude 05:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed comments 

message: http://hopl.murdoch.edu.au/ reads "This site lists 8276 languages... It has delivered more than 1,720,000 programming languages descriptions in the last 14 months". (I think this latter bit is their way of saying web-hits.) Ewlyahoocom 20:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was deliberatly done to confuse people. —Ruud 20:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure it was a good faith mistake. Haven't we all discovered some new bit of information, rushed to add it to Wikipedia, only to find out later (usually only a few minutes) that we misread it? Hmmm... maybe we'll have to keep our eye on you. Ewlyahoocom 20:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oy... what happened to WP:AGF? —Ruud 20:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  When the editor in question writes "I think it was deliberatly", then one no longer has to assume, yes? However... if I may assume that you're joking, then you may assume that I'm joking, too. Ewlyahoocom 21:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My "it being done" refered to HOPL stating such a large number without sopecifing what "delivered" mean, not that my addition was done to confuse people. —Ruud 21:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I see! HAHAHA! Wait a sec... where's your good faith for those guys!? HAHAHAHA! :-) Ewlyahoocom 05:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Millions" of what? 

message: {{Substituted comment|length=201|lastedit=20060911170143|comment=Needs fixing of a few s. Titoxd(?!?) 17:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment