Talk:History of programming languages
|A summary of this article appears in Programming language.|
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated List-class, Mid-importance)|
|To-do list for History of programming languages:|
Cleanup and historical prose
From Wikipedia:Cleanup#September_12 ...
- History of programming languages - no prose; just a list of links to articles about programming languages arranged in order of their invention; doesn't make any sense --Szyslak
I've turned this into a list of major programming laguages with years, and see also to Timeline of programming languages. I leave it to others to put in historical prose. ;-) -- sabre23t 03:09, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Someone has suggested that some of the HOPL page content be merged in here. I, for one, dislike this idea. HOPL is a unique conference in that it goes into depth on important languages (once every 15 years). As part of the preparation for HOPL III, the program committee is trying to create a community view of the history of the classes of languages covered by the HOPL III. Hence the history material in the HOPL III page is not a fully general history, rather it concentrates on material associated with the specific information to be in the conference. We would like the experiment to continue here on Wikipedia --n2cjn
- It seems as if there is no more discussion regarding merger at this time. Can we remove the link on the main page? --n2cjn
Hollerith card size
I removed part of a sentence that talked about Hollerith punched cards being the same size as the dollar bill, because:
- it's irrelevant to this "History of Programming Languages" article.
- it's already covered (in more detail) in Punched card.
- it's probably just an urban legend, anyway.
Why is there no mention of SNOBOL (esp SNOBOL4)? This was an influential language, and not merely because of a "string-oriented" paradigm. It was much more "high-level" than LISP, more on the level of APL in that regard. VinnieMan (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Shell scripting languages
First, I want to congratulate all who made this article so well-written.
Now, shouldn't it also mention shell scripting languages beginning in the (70s?)? It seems that a defining feature of this paradigm is the emphasis on files, in contrast to, say C. -Pgan002 (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Outstanding job people!!! I saw a lot of that history first hand, and this article does an excellent job of documenting a difficult subject. 20:12, 26 May 2010 (codeslinger) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk)
"Current trends" section: Original research?
Currently, the content of the "Current trends" section reads a lot like a collection of personal opinions and original research, and does not have any citations and sources as attribution for the trends listed.
The listed trends do not seem outright bad or removed from reality, but they should definitely at least be backed up with attributions to sources that claim them. Does anybody know of an appropriate paper, survey, or publication that could be attributed for some of these?
Sebesta reference question
The previous revision included "M6 14:18" in the citation. Any ideas what this meant? I removed it as there was no obvious place in Template:Cite book. Paul2520 (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)OJFPOIKJSVOLWSAK,EZ[FDP;LSA,FC;L VC PSKF SACPoakmfd D;ÓKQD0-
Early History minor edit
At first I thought this was a simple typo, minor correction, but now that I look at it, I'm not so sure what is the best change. The current sentence in the "Early History" section of the article is:
Turing machines set the basis for storage of programs as data is in the von neuman architecture of computers by representing a machine through a finite number.
I suppose it is possible that this is exactly the sentence the author intended, and it is then very suitable. But most likely, I thought they left out a word and intended to write:
Turing machines set the basis for storage of programs as data in the von Neumann architecture of computers by representing a "machine instruction" through a finite number.
Alternatively, the author wants to use a word like "state" or "symbol" then latter being most correct, but then needing more explanation to fit the context and point. How about avoiding this all with an alternate framing of the thought, such as:
Turing machines set the basis for storage of programs as data in the von Neumann architecture of computers by having information stored on a readable tape.
But I'd like to just put that as my suggestion, not feeling like I should just make the edit.