Comparison of programming languages: Difference between revisions
Added GLBasic entry |
|||
Line 247: | Line 247: | ||
| Application, games |
| Application, games |
||
| event-driven, imperative, object-oriented |
| event-driven, imperative, object-oriented |
||
| {{no}} |
|||
|- |
|||
! [[GLBasic]] |
|||
| Application, games |
|||
| imperative, procedural, simple object-oriented |
|||
| {{no}} |
| {{no}} |
||
|- |
|- |
||
Line 786: | Line 791: | ||
| explicit |
| explicit |
||
| name-based |
| name-based |
||
| |
| |
||
|- |
|||
! [[GLBasic]] |
|||
| {{Yes|strong}} |
|||
| {{Yes|safe}} |
|||
| explicit. Non-explicit declarations available through project options |
|||
| name-based |
|||
| static |
|||
|- |
|- |
||
! [[Go (programming language)|Go]]<ref>[http://golang.org/doc/go_spec.html The Go Programming Language Specification]</ref> |
! [[Go (programming language)|Go]]<ref>[http://golang.org/doc/go_spec.html The Go Programming Language Specification]</ref> |
||
Line 1,190: | Line 1,202: | ||
| {{yes}} |
| {{yes}} |
||
|- |
|- |
||
! [[GLBasic]] |
|||
| {{no}} - Will generally cause program to crash |
|||
| - |
|||
! [[Go (programming language)|Go]] |
! [[Go (programming language)|Go]] |
||
| {{no}} |
| {{no}} |
Revision as of 12:20, 26 March 2012
Programming languages are used for controlling the behavior of a machine (often a computer). Like natural languages, programming languages conform to rules for syntax and semantics.
There are thousands of programming languages[1] and new ones are created every year. Few languages ever become sufficiently popular that they are used by more than a few people, but professional programmers can easily use dozens of different languages during their career.
General comparison
The following table compares general and technical information for a selection of commonly used programming languages. See the individual languages' articles for further information. Please note that the following table may be missing some information.
Language | Intended use | Paradigm(s) | Standardized? |
---|---|---|---|
ActionScript 3.0 | Application, client-side, Web | event-driven, imperative, object-oriented | 1996, ECMA |
Ada | Application, embedded, realtime, system | concurrent,[2] distributed,[3] generic,[4] imperative object-oriented,[5] procedural,[6] | 1983, ANSI, ISO, GOST 27831-88[7] |
Aldor | Highly domain-specific, symbolic computing | imperative, functional, object-oriented | No |
ALGOL 58 | Application | imperative | No |
ALGOL 60 | Application | imperative | 1960, IFIP WG 2.1, ISO[8] |
ALGOL 68 | Application | concurrent, imperative | 1968, IFIP WG 2.1, GOST 27974-88,[9] |
Ateji PX | Parallel application | object-oriented, pi calculus | No |
APL | Application, data processing | array-oriented, tacit | 1989, ISO |
Assembly language | General | any, imperative | No |
AutoHotkey | GUI automation (macros), highly domain-specific | imperative | No |
AutoIt | GUI automation (macros), highly domain-specific | event-driven, imperative, procedural | No |
BASIC | Application, education | imperative, procedural | 1983, ANSI, ISO |
BBj | Application, business, Web | object-oriented, procedural | No |
BeanShell | Application, scripting | functional, imperative, object-oriented, reflective | In progress, JCP[10] |
BLISS | System | procedural | No |
BlitzMax | Application, game | imperative, object-oriented, procedural | No |
Boo | Application | No | |
C | System[11] | imperative, procedural | 1989, ANSI C89, ISO C90/C99 |
C++ | Application, system | generic, imperative, object-oriented, procedural | 2011, ISO |
C# | Application, business, client-side, general, server-side, Web | functional,[12] generic, imperative, object-oriented, reflective | 2000, ECMA, ISO[13] |
Clarion | General, business, Web | functional,[14] imperative, object-oriented | Unknown |
Clean | General | functional, generic | No |
Clojure | General | concurrent, functional | No |
CLU | General | generic, imperative, object-oriented, procedural | No |
COBOL | Application, business | imperative, object-oriented | 2002 (ISO/IEC 1989) |
Cobra | Application, business, general, Web | functional, generic, imperative, object-oriented, reflective | No |
ColdFusion (CFML) | Web | object-oriented, procedural | No |
Common Lisp | General | functional, generic, imperative, object-oriented, reflective | 1994, ANSI |
COMAL 80 | Education | imperative, procedural | No |
Crystal 1.0.0 | Education | functional, imperative, procedural | No |
Cython | Application, general, numerical computing | aspect-oriented, functional, imperative, object-oriented, reflective | No |
D | Application, system | generic, generative, imperative, object-oriented, functional, concurrent | No |
Dylan | Application | functional, object-oriented | No |
Eiffel | Application | generic, imperative, object-oriented | 2005, ECMA, ISO[15] |
Erlang | Application, distributed, telecom | concurrent, distributed, functional | No |
Euphoria | Application | procedural | No |
Factor | stack-oriented | No | |
Falcon | General, Application | procedural, functional, object oriented, prototype OOP, message oriented, tabular programming | No |
FP | functional | No | |
F# | Application | functional, generic, imperative, object-oriented | No |
Forth | General | imperative, stack-oriented | 1994, ANSI |
Fortran | Application, numerical computing | generic, imperative, object-oriented, procedural | 1966, ANSI 66, ANSI 77, MIL-STD-1753, ISO 90, ISO 95, ISO 2003 |
G2 | Application, inference, expert system | common graphical development and runtime environment, event-driven, imperative, object-oriented | No |
Gambas | Application | event-driven, imperative, object-oriented | No |
Game Maker Language | Application, games | event-driven, imperative, object-oriented | No |
GLBasic | Application, games | imperative, procedural, simple object-oriented | No |
Go | Application, system | concurrent, imperative | No |
Gosu | Application, general, scripting, system, Web | generic, imperative, object-oriented, reflective | No |
GraphTalk | Application | logic, object-oriented | No |
Groovy | Application, Web | aspect-oriented, imperative, object-oriented | In progress, JCP[16] |
Harbour | Application, business, data processing, general, Web | declarative, functional, generic, imperative, object-oriented, procedural, reflective | No |
Haskell | Application | functional, generic, lazy evaluation | 2010, Haskell 2010[17] |
haXe | Application, general, Web | imperative, object-oriented, functional, generic, reflective | No |
HyperNext | Application, education | event-driven, procedural, weakly typed | No |
IBM RPG | Application, system | imperative, procedural | No |
Io | Application, host-driven scripting | imperative, object-oriented | No |
ISLISP | General | functional, generic, imperative, object-oriented | 1997, ISO |
J | Data processing | array-oriented, function-level, tacit | No |
JADE | Application, distributed | imperative, object-oriented | No |
Java | Application, business, client-side, general, server-side, Web | generic, imperative, object-oriented, reflective | De facto standard via Java Language Specification |
JavaScript | Client-side, Web | functional, imperative, prototype-based, reflective | 1997, ECMA |
Joy | Research | functional, stack-oriented | No |
LabVIEW (G) | Application, industrial instrumentation-automation | dataflow, visual | No |
Lisp | General | functional | Unknown |
Logtalk | Artificial intelligence, application | event-driven, logic, object-oriented, reflective | No |
Lua | Application, embedded scripting | aspect-oriented, functional, imperative, object-oriented, procedural, reflective | No[18] |
Mathematica | Highly domain-specific, symbolic computing | functional, procedural | No |
MATLAB | Highly domain-specific, numerical computing | imperative, object-oriented, procedural | No |
Modula-2 | Application, system | generic, imperative | 1996, ISO[19] |
Modula-3 | Application | generic, imperative, object-oriented | No |
Oberon | Application, system | imperative, object-oriented | No |
Objective-C | Application | imperative, object-oriented, reflective | No[20] |
OCaml | Application | functional, generic, imperative, object-oriented | No |
Object Pascal (Delphi) | Application, business, client-side, general, server-side, Web | aspect-oriented,[21] event-driven, functional, generic, imperative, object-oriented, procedural, reflective | No |
Occam | General | concurrent, imperative, procedural, process-oriented | No |
Opa | Web applications | functional, generic, imperative, distributed | No |
Oxygene | Application | generic, imperative, object-oriented | No |
Oz | Application, distribution, education | concurrent, functional, imperative, logic, object-oriented | No |
Pascal | Application, education | imperative, procedural | 1983, ISO[22] |
Pawn | Embedded, host-driven scripting | imperative | No |
Perl | Application, scripting, text processing, Web | functional, generic, imperative, object-oriented, procedural, reflective | No |
PHP | Server-side, Web | imperative, object-oriented,[23] procedural,[24] reflective | No |
PL/I | Application | imperative, object-oriented, procedural | 1969 |
Plus | Application, system development | imperative, procedural | No |
Prolog | Application, artificial intelligence | logic | 1995, ISO |
PureBasic | Application | procedural | No |
Python | Application, general, Web, scripting | aspect-oriented, functional, imperative, object-oriented, reflective | De facto standard via Python Enhancement Proposals (PEP)s. |
REALbasic | Application | procedural | Unknown |
REBOL | Distributed | dialected, functional, imperative, object-oriented | No |
Ruby | Application, scripting, Web | aspect-oriented, functional, imperative, object-oriented, reflective | No |
Rust | Application, system | concurrent, functional, generic, imperative, object-oriented, reflective | No |
S | Application, statistics | functional, imperative, object-oriented, procedural | No |
S-Lang | Application, numerical, scripting | imperative, procedural | No |
Scala | Application, distributed, Web | functional, generic, imperative, object-oriented | No |
Scheme | Education, general | functional | 1998, R6RS |
Simula | Education, general | discrete event simulation, event-driven, imperative, multi-threaded (quasi-parallel) program execution, object-oriented | 1968 |
Smalltalk | Application, education | concurrent, declarative, event-driven, object-oriented, reflective | 1998, ANSI |
SNOBOL | Text processing | Unknown | |
Standard ML | Application | functional, generic, imperative | 1997, SML '97[25] |
Tcl | Application, scripting, Web | event-driven, imperative, procedural, reflective | No |
Visual Basic | Application, education | component-oriented, event-driven, imperative | No |
Visual Basic .NET | Application, education, Web | event-driven, imperative, object-oriented | No |
Visual Prolog | Application | declarative, event-driven, functional, imperative, logic, object-oriented | No |
Windows PowerShell | Administration | functional, imperative, object-oriented, pipeline, reflective | No |
XL | concept programming, imperative, object-oriented | No | |
Language | Intended use | Paradigm(s) | Standardized? |
Type systems
Brief definitions
- Compatibility among composite types is how functions are applied to data typed similarly to its intended type. Name-based compatibility means that functions work only on data of its intended type and declared subtypes. Property-based compatibility means that functions work on any data that has the same properties as its intended type.
- Type checking is how type errors are checked. Static checking occurs at compile-time. Dynamic checking occurs at run-time.
Language | Type strength | Type safety | Type expression | Type compatibility among composites | Type checking |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
ActionScript 3.0 | strong | safe | implicit with optional explicit typing | static | |
Ada | strong | safe[TS 1] | explicit | name-based | partially dynamic[TS 2] |
Aldor | strong | unsafe | implicit | static | |
ALGOL 58 | strong | safe | explicit | static | |
ALGOL 60 | strong | safe | explicit | static | |
ALGOL 68 | strong | safe | explicit | property-based | static |
APL | strong | safe | dynamic | ||
AutoHotkey | none | ||||
Ateji PX | strong | safe | explicit | name-based | static |
BASIC | varies by dialect | ||||
BLISS | none | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
BeanShell | strong | safe | name-based | dynamic | |
Boo | strong | safe | implicit with optional explicit typing | static with optional dynamic typing | |
C | strong | unsafe | explicit | name-based | static |
C++ (ISO/IEC 14882) | strong | unsafe | explicit | name-based | static[TS 3] |
C# | strong | safe[TS 4] | implicit with optional explicit typing | name-based | static[TS 5] |
Clean | strong | safe | implicit | static | |
Clojure | strong | safe | implicit with optional explicit typing | dynamic | |
COBOL | strong | static | |||
ColdFusion (CFML) | strong | safe | implicit | dynamic | |
Common Lisp | strong | safe | implicit with optional explicit typing | dynamic | |
Curl | strong | safe | name-based | ||
Cython | strong | safe | implicit with optional explicit typing | name-based (extension types) and property-based (Python) | dynamic with optional static typing |
D | strong | unsafe[TS 6] | explicit | name-based | static |
Dylan | strong | safe | dynamic | ||
Eiffel | strong | safe | name-based | static | |
Erlang | strong | safe | implicit | dynamic | |
F# | strong | safe | implicit | name-based | static |
Falcon | strong | safe | implicit | property-based | dynamic |
Forth | none | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
Fortran | strong | safe | explicit | name-based | static |
Gambas | strong | safe | explicit | name-based | |
GLBasic | strong | safe | explicit. Non-explicit declarations available through project options | name-based | static |
Go[26] | strong | safe | implicit with optional explicit typing | property-based | static |
Gosu | strong | safe | partially implicit (local type inference) | name-based (subclassing) and property-based (structural) | static |
GraphTalk | weak | ||||
Groovy | strong | safe | implicit with optional explicit typing | dynamic | |
Harbour | strong | safe | implicit with optional explicit typing | dynamic | |
Haskell | strong | safe | implicit with optional explicit typing | property-based | static |
haXe | strong | safe | implicit with optional explicit typing | name-based (subclassing) and property-based (structural) | static with optional dynamic typing |
Io | strong | dynamic | |||
ISLISP | strong | safe | dynamic | ||
J | strong | safe | dynamic | ||
Java | strong | safe[27] | explicit | name-based | static |
JavaScript | weak | implicit | dynamic | ||
Joy | strong | safe | dynamic | ||
Lua | weak | safe | implicit | dynamic | |
Mathematica | strong | dynamic | |||
MATLAB M-code | dynamic | ||||
Modula-2 | strong | unsafe[TS 6] | explicit | name-based | static |
Modula-3 | strong | unsafe[TS 6] | explicit | property-based | static |
Oberon | strong | safe | explicit | name-based | static and partially dynamic[TS 7] |
Objective-C | weak | safe | explicit | name-based (subclassing) and property-based (protocols) | dynamic with optional static typing[28] |
OCaml | strong | safe | implicit with optional explicit typing | property-based | static |
Object Pascal (Delphi) | strong | safe | explicit | name-based | static |
Opa | strong | safe | implicit with optional explicit typing | property-based | static |
Oxygene | strong | unsafe | implicit | static | |
Oz | strong | safe | implicit | property-based | dynamic |
Pascal | strong | unsafe[TS 6] | explicit | name-based | static |
Perl 5 | weak | implicit | dynamic | ||
Perl 6 | partially implicit[TS 8] | dynamic with optional static typing | |||
PHP | weak | implicit | dynamic | ||
Plus | strong | safe | explicit | property-based | static, dynamic (optional) |
Prolog | strong | dynamic | |||
Pure | dynamic | ||||
Python | strong | safe | implicit | property-based | dynamic |
REBOL | strong | safe | implicit | dynamic | |
Ruby | strong | safe | implicit | property-based | dynamic |
Rust | strong | safe | implicit with optional explicit typing | static with optional dynamic typing | |
S | strong | dynamic | |||
S-Lang | strong | safe | implicit | dynamic | |
Scala | strong | safe | partially implicit (local type inference) | name-based (subclassing) and property-based (structural) | static |
Scheme | strong | implicit | dynamic (latent) | ||
Simula | strong | safe | static[TS 9] | ||
Smalltalk | strong | safe | implicit | dynamic | |
Standard ML | strong | safe | implicit with optional explicit typing | property-based | static |
Tcl | dynamic | ||||
Visual Basic | strong | safe | implicit with optional explicit typing | name-based | static |
Visual Basic .NET | strong | unsafe[TS 6] | explicit | static | |
Visual Prolog | strong | safe | partially implicit | name-based | static |
Windows PowerShell | strong | safe | implicit | dynamic | |
XL | strong | safe | name-based | static | |
Language | Type strength | Type safety | Type expression | Type compatibility among composites | Type checking |
- ^ Unsafe operations are well isolated by a "Unchecked_" prefix.
- ^ Dynamic type checking is used when type safety can not be determined staticly i.e. for tagged types (type extension / inheritance), numeric ranges and array bounds.
- ^ with optional dynamic type casting (see dynamic cast)
- ^ Safe, but supports unsafe code through an explicit declaration
- ^ with optional dynamic type (see dynamic member lookup)
- ^ a b c d e It is almost safe, unsafe features are not commonly used.
- ^ dynamic checking of type extensions i.e. inherited types
- ^ explicit for static types
- ^ optional for formal and virtual procedures
Failsafe I/O and system calls
Most programming languages will print an error message and/or throw an exception if an input/output operation or other system call (e.g., chmod, kill) fails, unless the programmer has explicitly arranged for different handling of these events. Thus, these languages fail safely in this regard.
Some (mostly older) languages require that the programmer explicitly add checks for these kinds of errors. It is common for novice programmers to forget to add these checks, and even experts occasionally do so—these omissions can lead to erroneous behavior.
Language | Failsafe I/O | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Ada | Yes (exceptions) | |||
AutoHotkey | No (global ErrorLevel must be explicitly checked) | |||
C | No[FSIO 1] | |||
C++ | No[FSIO 2] | |||
C# | Yes | |||
Common Lisp | Yes | |||
D | Yes [citation needed] | |||
Erlang | Yes | |||
Falcon | Yes | |||
Fortran | Yes | |||
GLBasic | No - Will generally cause program to crash | - | Go | No |
Gosu | Yes | |||
Harbour | Yes | |||
Haskell | Yes | |||
ISLISP | Yes | |||
Java | Yes | |||
Lua | No (some functions do not warn or throw exceptions) | |||
Mathematica | Yes | |||
Object Pascal (Delphi) | Some | |||
Objective-C | Yes (exceptions) | |||
OCaml | Yes (exceptions) | |||
Perl | No[FSIO 3] | |||
PHP | Yes | |||
Python | Yes | |||
REBOL | Yes | |||
Ruby | Yes | |||
Rust | Yes | |||
S | Unknown | |||
Scala | Yes [citation needed] | |||
Standard ML | Yes [citation needed] | |||
Tcl | Yes | |||
Visual Basic | Yes | |||
Visual Prolog | Yes | |||
Language | Failsafe I/O |
- ^ gcc can warn on unchecked error status. Newer versions of Visual Studio usually throw exceptions on failed I/O when using stdio.
- ^ g++ can warn on unchecked error status. Newer versions of Visual Studio usually throw exceptions on failed I/O when using stdio.
- ^ Considerable error checking can be enabled optionally, but by default Perl is not failsafe.
Expressiveness
Language | Statements ratio[29] | Lines ratio[30] |
---|---|---|
C | 1 | 1 |
C++ | 2.5 | 1 |
Fortran | 2 | 0.8 |
Java | 2.5 | 1.5 |
Perl | 6 | 6 |
Smalltalk | 6 | 6.25 |
Python | 6.5 |
The literature on programming languages contains an abundance of informal claims about their relative expressive power, but there is no framework for formalizing such statements nor for deriving interesting consequences.[31] This table provides two measures of expressiveness from two different sources. An additional measure of expressiveness, in GZip bytes, can be found on the Computer Language Benchmarks Game.[32]
Benchmarks
Benchmarks are designed to mimic a particular type of workload on a component or system. The computer programs used for compiling some of the benchmark data in this section may not have been fully optimized, and the relevance of the data is disputed. The most accurate benchmarks are those that are customized to your particular situation. Other people's benchmark data may have some value to others, but proper interpretation brings many challenges. See this page about flawed benchmarks and comparisons. The Computer Language Benchmarks Game site contains a large number of micro-benchmarks of reader-contributed code snippets, with an interface that generates various charts and tables comparing specific programming languages and types of tests.
Time line of specific language comparisons
- 1973 - Comparative Notes on Algol 68 and PL/I - S. H. Valentine - February 1973
- 1976 - Evaluation of ALGOL 68, JOVIAL J3B, Pascal, Simula 67, and TACPOL Versus TINMAN - Requirements for a Common High Order Programming Language.
- 1977 - A comparison of PASCAL and ALGOL 68[1] - Andrew S. Tanenbaum - June 1977.
- 1993 - Five Little Languages and How They Grew - BLISS, Pascal, ALGOL 68, BCPL & C - Dennis M. Ritchie - April 1993.
- 2009 - On Go - oh, go on - How well will Google's Go stand up against Brand X programming language? - David Given - November 2009
See also
- Alphabetical list of programming languages
- Comparison of basic instructions of programming languages
- Comparison of programming languages (string functions)
- Comparison of programming languages (strings)
- Comparison of programming languages (syntax)
- Comparison of programming languages (array)
- Comparison of programming languages (object-oriented programming)
- Comparison of programming languages (list comprehension)
- Comparison of programming languages (mapping)
- Comparison of programming paradigms
- Educational programming language
- Hello world program examples
- Measuring programming language popularity
- Programming language
References
- ^ As of May 2006 Diarmuid Pigott's Encyclopedia of Computer Languages hosted at Murdoch University, Australia lists 8512 computer languages.
- ^ Ada Reference Manual, ISO/IEC 8652:2005(E) Ed. 3, Section 9: Tasks and Synchronization
- ^ Ada Reference Manual, ISO/IEC 8652:2005(E) Ed. 3 Annex E: Distributed Systems
- ^ Ada Reference Manual, ISO/IEC 8652:2005(E) Ed. 3, Section 12: Generic Units
- ^ Ada Reference Manual, ISO/IEC 8652:2005(E) Ed. 3, 3.9 Tagged Types and Type Extensions
- ^ Ada Reference Manual, ISO/IEC 8652:2005(E) Ed. 3, Section 6: Subprograms
- ^ Vak.ru
- ^ ISO 1538:1984
- ^ Vak.ru
- ^ JSR 274
- ^ CM.bell-labs.com
- ^ Codeproject.com
- ^ ECMA-334; ISO/IEC 23270:2006
- ^ Softvelocity.com
- ^ ECMA-367; ISO/IEC 25436:2006
- ^ JSR 241
- ^ [www.haskell.org/onlinereport/haskell2010/ "The Haskell 2010 Language Report"]. Retrieved 2011-12-07.
{{cite web}}
: Check|url=
value (help) Most Haskell implementations extend the Haskell 2010 standard. - ^ Version releases are accompanied with a definitive Lua Reference Manual showing full syntax and semantics; a reference implementation, and a test suite. These are used to generate other Lua VM implementations and compilers such as Kahlua and LLVM-Lua.
- ^ ISO/IEC 10514-1:1996
- ^ GCC.GNU.org
- ^ Cirrus: Aspect-oriented programming in Delphi Prism
- ^ ISO 7185
- ^ PHP Manual, Chapter 19. Classes and Objects (PHP 5),
- ^ PHP Manual, Chapter 17. Functions
- ^ SMLNJ.org
- ^ The Go Programming Language Specification
- ^ Sheng Liang, Gilad Bracha. Dynamic class loading in the Java virtual machine. Volume 33, Issue 10 of ACM SIGPLAN Notices, October 1998.
- ^ Developer.apple.com
- ^ Data from Code Complete. The Statements ratio column "shows typical ratios of source statements in several high-level languages to the equivalent code in C. A higher ratio means that each line of code in the language listed accomplishes more than does each line of code in C.
- ^ The ratio of line count tests won by each language to the number won by C when using the Compare to feature at Shootout.alioth.debian.org. Last updated May, 2006. C gcc was used for C, C++ g++ was used for C++, FORTRAN G95 was used for FORTRAN, Java JDK Server was used for Java, and Smalltalk GST was used for Smalltalk.
- ^ From On the Expressive Power of Programming Languages, Matthias Felleisen, ESOP '90 3rd European Symposium on Programming.
- ^ Computer Language Benchmarks Game ranking
Further reading
- Cezzar, Ruknet. A Guide to Programming Languages: Overview and Comparison. ISBN 978-0890068120.
External links
- 99-bottles-of-beer.net — one program in over a thousand variations and multiple languages.
- The speed, size and dependability of programming languages — charts and narrative based on The Computer Language Benchmarks Game data.
- Shapes: Source Code Size and Run Time - charts based on current Benchmarks Game data.
- Comparison of syntaxes with sample codes.
- Syntax Across Languages
- Programming Language Comparison — a comparison of nine programming languages and related information.
- Scriptometer scores — multiple comparisons of 26 programming languages.
- Template:PDFlink — research to fulfill Kristofer J. Carlson's master's degree requirements.
- PLEAC — Programming Language Examples Alike Cookbook.
- OHLOH Language Statistics — gives an indication of the popularity of programming languages in open-source projects.
- History of Programming Language Statements — history and comparison of programming languages.