![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
See Talk:Programming_languages Rlee0001 02:17 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC)
( Rlee0001 03:30 Oct 28, 2002 (UTC))
Cocoa is a framework written in Objective C, not a programming language - Anonymous Coward
I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but I notice that you include HTML, XML and other markup languages as programming languages on this list. In my computer science courses it was commonly taught that HTML does not constitute a programming language, because it is not compiled in any way. There may be more subtleties to this discussion, but I thought I would bring it up. Does anyone else have an opinion or expertise on this subject? - DropDeadGorgias 22:01, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Timwi, you alluded to the inevitable followup to the markup separation earlier, that of script languages. :
:: Even worse is the distinction between programming languages and scripting languages, since both of them tend to be Turing-complete. Another argument often brought forward is whether they are compiled or interpreted; in the times of Basic and Pascal, this distinction was pretty clear-cut, but with more and more programming languages bridging the gap (e.g. Java being compiled into bytecode which is then interpreted and sometimes being just-in-time compiled, or Perl originally having been interpreted but now being processed rather like a just-in-time compiled language), this also falls down.
I also have to bring forward the commonly given definition of a programming language: An artificial language used to write instructions that can be translated into machine language and then executed by a computer. As I went through the list of programming languages,. i came across several dubious entries, such as JavaScript, HTMLScript, PostScript, etc. If we include these scripting languages, why not shell languages like ksh? I am still unconvinced that a script language accomplishes this. I would like to begin to discuss this topic here, and possibly consider separating out another list List of script languages, or something suitably distinct. - DropDeadGorgias 21:28, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
http://www.crockford.com/javascript/javascript.html --anon
Would it be practical to eventually include information on the 600+ and rising programming languages?
For example, http://99-bottles-of-beer.ls-la.net shows the syntaxes of 621 (and rising) programming languages. -- User:Ixfd64, 17:10 PDT, March 6
Somebody needs to write an article on the SAS language. Until then, I'm pointing SAS to SAS Institute, which is apparently the closest appropriate article at this time. -- Stevietheman 05:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I wrote it but left it under SAS Institute. Gzuckier 19:16, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
(moved from Talk:Programming language)
A great webpage is Zirings Dictionary on Programming languages
These are the language links currently listed in programming language. They need to be refactored and regularized. In particular, those language names that are ambiguous should all be "Lang programming language". There has been some attempt to make this consistent, but with exceptions (Awk, Bliss, etc.)
In the list below, I expected that one, sometines two, links in each line, one language per line, to work. The list should always show the current status of these links.
Personally, I think that "lang programming language" is more precise but "lang language" is just barely good enough. The only entries that presently use "lang language" are C (fixed now) and Ruby, so I am going to do what I can to make them work right and also what I can to make all the ambiguous ones work right with "lang programming language".
-- Buzco
Is it PL/1 or PL/I (ie: is it a one or an eye)
Digging around on IBM suggests that it is PL/I pronounced Pee Ell One (roman numeral for one). That is consistent with my Dragon Book which uses PL/I except in one place where it uses PL/1 but I think that might be a typo. It is called "PL/I" by the ANSI standard: ANSI X3.74-1987 (R1998) Title: Information Systems - Programming Language - PL/I General-Purpose Subset
(on Fortran:) The reason there is a redirect is because both spellings are used and we want obvious linking to work. The pages Fortran and FORTRAN should probably be swapped round, but it doesn't matter much.
-- drj
User:Stan Shebs has recently been changing existing valid prog lang references from the LangName programming language format to the LangName one.
Previously there was a discussion (see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages))on whether or not there should be a standard for naming prog lang articles (while providing the [LangName (programming language)|LangName] redirects always and the [LangName] shortcut redirects when possible --i.e., in the same exact cases as the current practice, so no extra typing needed ever). The result of that discussion was that, even though of the 5 wikipedians actively involved in it, 3 voted for standardization ( User:Danakil, User:ZeroOne, User:AdmN), 1 explicitly refrained from voting ( User:TakuyaMurata), and only 1 opposed ( User:Stan Shebs), nevertheless the decision was made not only to not proceed to perfect the current convention and standardize, but to actually proceed in the opposite direction and begin moving all existing prog lang articles which were created with the form [LangName programming language] to the [LangName] form when possible.
In spite of the voting, all of us involved accepted User:Stan Shebs decision and I, for the least, still do. However, as noted above, User:Stan Shebs, has now proceeded to begin changing existing references of the form [LangName programming language] to the potentially unstable form [LangName]. This is not what was discussed and accepted, and I can see no possible benefit to Wikipedia in making these reference changes. One of the core arguments for standardization was that LangName form prog lang articles were always at risk of being disambiguated later, and somebody would then have to go back and change all references. To give just one example, [Scala programming language] was recently changed to [Scala]... well, even more recently there was another meaning entered for 'Scala', which currently sits in the same article but will eventually have to be moved to its own and the [Scala] name disambiguated... in that context (and please let me be clear that I am not re-arguing the original case for standardization but rather I'm oppossing needless reference changes when these actually are potentially disadvantageous) what is the point of changing existing [LangName programming language] references?
— danakil 17:37, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
The ADL link goes to a disambiguation page that doesn't mention anything involving computers. Any ideas what it is? AdmN 01:36, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll pop something about this into the disambiguation page. AdmN 15:44, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Whoops... someone beat me to it. :) AdmN 15:50, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Is AMOS really a programming language ? That link goes to a page that doesn't mention anything involving computers.
Does BASIC belong in historical programming languages? In my opinion, historical programming languages are those that are defunct. BASIC is still in use, and many programs (I think the majority [could be VB though], but not sure on this) are programmed in BASIC. As such, I believe it should be tagged as industrial. Not all BASIC implementations in use are VB.
In September 2004 esoteric programming languages were removed and a link added to List of esoteric programming languages. However, since then they have been creeping back in. Either they should be removed again, or the note "Note: Esoteric programming languages have been moved to the separate List of esoteric programming languages." at the top of the page must be removed. Yym 6 July 2005 09:21 (UTC)
I would think that the esoteric programming languages should be in the list. Having a master list of programming languages would probably create less confusion than having a main list and links to sub-lists that have simular characteristics. There can still be a separate list of esoteric languages, and basic and C derived languages, but this listing should be all inclusive.-- Yarvin 6 July 2005 16:53 (UTC)
I count 381 languages on this page and 173 on the esoterics page. If you take into account that a number of languages are currently on both pages, that means in combined listing 1 in 3 languages would be esoteric. I think that would make it difficult to see the "serious" languages. In any case, if they are going to be here the note needs correcting. Perhaps they should be here, but marked somehow? Yym 7 July 2005 10:56 (UTC)
Just keep whacking the esoteric languages from this list. By their nature, it is extremely unlikely that anybody would ever look up an esoteric language without already knowing it was esoteric, and their presence on this list may lead people astray ("C-" for instance). The old criterion from Jean Sammet's book is a useful test ("is/was in regular use by other than the original developer"). Stan 7 July 2005 13:04 (UTC)
moved mKR. Rhmccullough ( talk) 12:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Added KIF, a standardized AI language. Rhmccullough ( talk) 12:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Why is Apex not listed? http://wiki.apexdevnet.com/index.php/Apex_Code:_The_World's_First_On-Demand_Programming_Language —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.89.115 ( talk) 15:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Why is there no standard for this? For mKR, I just copied Unicon, which has parentheses. But looking at this big list, there are a lot without parentheses. Rhmccullough ( talk) 12:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is a review of some programming languages for novice programmers:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~caitlin/papers/NoviceProgSurvey.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.37.192.167 ( talk) 18:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
If a language is not notable enough to have its own wikipedia article then is it notable enough to warrant inclusion in this list? -- ClickRick ( talk) 08:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Certainly there should be some "Lists of programming languages by popularity" or "Lists of programming languages by estimated numbers of users" on Wikipedia, even if "it is hard to determine such numbers." Jidanni ( talk) 12:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
See Talk:Programming_languages Rlee0001 02:17 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC)
( Rlee0001 03:30 Oct 28, 2002 (UTC))
Cocoa is a framework written in Objective C, not a programming language - Anonymous Coward
I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but I notice that you include HTML, XML and other markup languages as programming languages on this list. In my computer science courses it was commonly taught that HTML does not constitute a programming language, because it is not compiled in any way. There may be more subtleties to this discussion, but I thought I would bring it up. Does anyone else have an opinion or expertise on this subject? - DropDeadGorgias 22:01, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Timwi, you alluded to the inevitable followup to the markup separation earlier, that of script languages. :
:: Even worse is the distinction between programming languages and scripting languages, since both of them tend to be Turing-complete. Another argument often brought forward is whether they are compiled or interpreted; in the times of Basic and Pascal, this distinction was pretty clear-cut, but with more and more programming languages bridging the gap (e.g. Java being compiled into bytecode which is then interpreted and sometimes being just-in-time compiled, or Perl originally having been interpreted but now being processed rather like a just-in-time compiled language), this also falls down.
I also have to bring forward the commonly given definition of a programming language: An artificial language used to write instructions that can be translated into machine language and then executed by a computer. As I went through the list of programming languages,. i came across several dubious entries, such as JavaScript, HTMLScript, PostScript, etc. If we include these scripting languages, why not shell languages like ksh? I am still unconvinced that a script language accomplishes this. I would like to begin to discuss this topic here, and possibly consider separating out another list List of script languages, or something suitably distinct. - DropDeadGorgias 21:28, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
http://www.crockford.com/javascript/javascript.html --anon
Would it be practical to eventually include information on the 600+ and rising programming languages?
For example, http://99-bottles-of-beer.ls-la.net shows the syntaxes of 621 (and rising) programming languages. -- User:Ixfd64, 17:10 PDT, March 6
Somebody needs to write an article on the SAS language. Until then, I'm pointing SAS to SAS Institute, which is apparently the closest appropriate article at this time. -- Stevietheman 05:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I wrote it but left it under SAS Institute. Gzuckier 19:16, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
(moved from Talk:Programming language)
A great webpage is Zirings Dictionary on Programming languages
These are the language links currently listed in programming language. They need to be refactored and regularized. In particular, those language names that are ambiguous should all be "Lang programming language". There has been some attempt to make this consistent, but with exceptions (Awk, Bliss, etc.)
In the list below, I expected that one, sometines two, links in each line, one language per line, to work. The list should always show the current status of these links.
Personally, I think that "lang programming language" is more precise but "lang language" is just barely good enough. The only entries that presently use "lang language" are C (fixed now) and Ruby, so I am going to do what I can to make them work right and also what I can to make all the ambiguous ones work right with "lang programming language".
-- Buzco
Is it PL/1 or PL/I (ie: is it a one or an eye)
Digging around on IBM suggests that it is PL/I pronounced Pee Ell One (roman numeral for one). That is consistent with my Dragon Book which uses PL/I except in one place where it uses PL/1 but I think that might be a typo. It is called "PL/I" by the ANSI standard: ANSI X3.74-1987 (R1998) Title: Information Systems - Programming Language - PL/I General-Purpose Subset
(on Fortran:) The reason there is a redirect is because both spellings are used and we want obvious linking to work. The pages Fortran and FORTRAN should probably be swapped round, but it doesn't matter much.
-- drj
User:Stan Shebs has recently been changing existing valid prog lang references from the LangName programming language format to the LangName one.
Previously there was a discussion (see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages))on whether or not there should be a standard for naming prog lang articles (while providing the [LangName (programming language)|LangName] redirects always and the [LangName] shortcut redirects when possible --i.e., in the same exact cases as the current practice, so no extra typing needed ever). The result of that discussion was that, even though of the 5 wikipedians actively involved in it, 3 voted for standardization ( User:Danakil, User:ZeroOne, User:AdmN), 1 explicitly refrained from voting ( User:TakuyaMurata), and only 1 opposed ( User:Stan Shebs), nevertheless the decision was made not only to not proceed to perfect the current convention and standardize, but to actually proceed in the opposite direction and begin moving all existing prog lang articles which were created with the form [LangName programming language] to the [LangName] form when possible.
In spite of the voting, all of us involved accepted User:Stan Shebs decision and I, for the least, still do. However, as noted above, User:Stan Shebs, has now proceeded to begin changing existing references of the form [LangName programming language] to the potentially unstable form [LangName]. This is not what was discussed and accepted, and I can see no possible benefit to Wikipedia in making these reference changes. One of the core arguments for standardization was that LangName form prog lang articles were always at risk of being disambiguated later, and somebody would then have to go back and change all references. To give just one example, [Scala programming language] was recently changed to [Scala]... well, even more recently there was another meaning entered for 'Scala', which currently sits in the same article but will eventually have to be moved to its own and the [Scala] name disambiguated... in that context (and please let me be clear that I am not re-arguing the original case for standardization but rather I'm oppossing needless reference changes when these actually are potentially disadvantageous) what is the point of changing existing [LangName programming language] references?
— danakil 17:37, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
The ADL link goes to a disambiguation page that doesn't mention anything involving computers. Any ideas what it is? AdmN 01:36, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll pop something about this into the disambiguation page. AdmN 15:44, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Whoops... someone beat me to it. :) AdmN 15:50, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Is AMOS really a programming language ? That link goes to a page that doesn't mention anything involving computers.
Does BASIC belong in historical programming languages? In my opinion, historical programming languages are those that are defunct. BASIC is still in use, and many programs (I think the majority [could be VB though], but not sure on this) are programmed in BASIC. As such, I believe it should be tagged as industrial. Not all BASIC implementations in use are VB.
In September 2004 esoteric programming languages were removed and a link added to List of esoteric programming languages. However, since then they have been creeping back in. Either they should be removed again, or the note "Note: Esoteric programming languages have been moved to the separate List of esoteric programming languages." at the top of the page must be removed. Yym 6 July 2005 09:21 (UTC)
I would think that the esoteric programming languages should be in the list. Having a master list of programming languages would probably create less confusion than having a main list and links to sub-lists that have simular characteristics. There can still be a separate list of esoteric languages, and basic and C derived languages, but this listing should be all inclusive.-- Yarvin 6 July 2005 16:53 (UTC)
I count 381 languages on this page and 173 on the esoterics page. If you take into account that a number of languages are currently on both pages, that means in combined listing 1 in 3 languages would be esoteric. I think that would make it difficult to see the "serious" languages. In any case, if they are going to be here the note needs correcting. Perhaps they should be here, but marked somehow? Yym 7 July 2005 10:56 (UTC)
Just keep whacking the esoteric languages from this list. By their nature, it is extremely unlikely that anybody would ever look up an esoteric language without already knowing it was esoteric, and their presence on this list may lead people astray ("C-" for instance). The old criterion from Jean Sammet's book is a useful test ("is/was in regular use by other than the original developer"). Stan 7 July 2005 13:04 (UTC)
moved mKR. Rhmccullough ( talk) 12:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Added KIF, a standardized AI language. Rhmccullough ( talk) 12:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Why is Apex not listed? http://wiki.apexdevnet.com/index.php/Apex_Code:_The_World's_First_On-Demand_Programming_Language —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.89.115 ( talk) 15:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Why is there no standard for this? For mKR, I just copied Unicon, which has parentheses. But looking at this big list, there are a lot without parentheses. Rhmccullough ( talk) 12:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is a review of some programming languages for novice programmers:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~caitlin/papers/NoviceProgSurvey.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.37.192.167 ( talk) 18:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
If a language is not notable enough to have its own wikipedia article then is it notable enough to warrant inclusion in this list? -- ClickRick ( talk) 08:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Certainly there should be some "Lists of programming languages by popularity" or "Lists of programming languages by estimated numbers of users" on Wikipedia, even if "it is hard to determine such numbers." Jidanni ( talk) 12:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)