Talk:List of programming languages
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated List-class)|
|WikiProject Lists||(Rated List-class)|
- 1 Numpy
- 2 Torp - is this actually a programming language?
- 3 4D
- 4 Assembly language(s)
- 5 Make is a language
- 6 Arduino is not a language
- 7 DEC- DAL (Digital Authoring Language)?
- 8 Is Speed II esoteric?
- 9 Programming languages versus markup languages
- 10 Algebraic modeling language
- 11 Bill Kinnersley's list
- 12 Should the "Visual xxx" implementations, or implementations in general, be included in this list?
- 13 Machine Code?
- 14 Non-procedural Languages?
- 15 C-family languages
- 16 Scratch by MIT is a huge coding language. It' needs to be added
- 17 SQL is a Programming Language
- 18 Delphi entry?
- 19 PCBoard Programming Language (aka PPL)
I believe numpy should not be on this list considering that it is a library for python and cannot be used on its own. From numpy.org, "NumPy is the fundamental package for scientific computing with Python".
AlexBenishek (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Torp - is this actually a programming language?
This does not seem to be a programming language at all. I'm a little bit hesitant to remove it from this list for some reason, but if it is to remain, its presence here needs to be justified and the link fixed. --Joel7687 (talk) 05:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'd agree, this is primarily a database product; its language appears seems to be more of an SQL than a programming language. Unless somebody disagrees, I'll remove it in a day or three. Nibios (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I propose that we replace the list of individual assemblers with a generic assembly language entry. Otherwise the list needs to be expanded to include (among others) the Motorola 6800, Intel 8080/8085, Zilog Z80 (different assembly language from the 8080 despite binary compatibility), IBM 7090, Data General Nova/Eclipse, etc, etc. In other words, it would become a laundry list of processors. Nibios (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- In fact it would be worse than that, since assembly is not machine code, we should have the machine codes as well. Rich Farmbrough, 16:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC).
Make is a language
Make is a language. The article about make says "The make language is similar to declarative programming." So it should probably be added to the list of programming languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Arduino is not a language
DEC- DAL (Digital Authoring Language)?
I am not sure if this qualifies as an "esoteric" language, but I worked with it in the early '80s. On this site:
I found the abstract below. Since it is a catalog, I believe there are no copyright issues.
Abstract: VAX DAL (Digital Authoring Language) is a powerful, easy to learn authoring language designed for developing computer-based instruction.
VAX DAL is a high level programming language designed expressly for computer-based instruction. Some major aspects of the language are: logging of lesson performance information, screen addressing, full integration of graphics, and special response judging capabilities, including a spelling algorithm.
VAX DAL has various response judging capabilities which can be incorporated into the lesson by the author. The author can:
- Control whether or not spelling, punctuation or capitalization must be exactly as specified in the response. - Indicate whether or not extra words can be entered in the response. - Specify that the words in the response can be in any order, as long as all of the words are present. - Define multiple right and wrong answers, each with a different logic path. - Specify that the response will be an expression, which will be evaluated during the response judging process.
Any of these attributes can be altered on a question by question basis.
Digital's DAL was based on the Tutor language developed by the University Of Illinois for the PLATO Computer Aided Education system which ran on CDC systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Is Speed II esoteric?
I designed applications in 1987-1990 for WANG VS using SPEED II. It was a 4GL which was also ported onto Unix. I am nor sure of the language's history after 1990. APPX retired their SPEED II product line in 2007 - see http://www.appx.com/assets/asp/dynamic_generator.asp?pageid=372 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Programming languages versus markup languages
- and what makes CSS better then HTML? CSS is a styling sheets. gute1 10:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- This has come up a few times before. Most people feel that there's a significant difference between a programming language and a markup language. Things like HTML and CSS are definitely markup languages not programming languages. TeX occupies an interesting position: it's often used as if it were a markup language, but it's capable of doing computations and is Turing-complete, so it's also listed as a programming language. Jowa fan (talk) 03:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Algebraic modeling language
The first line of Algebraic modeling language calls them "high-level computer programming languages". As such, I'm undoing the undocumented deletion of AMPL by 220.127.116.11 (talk). Mark Hurd (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Bill Kinnersley's list
I would provide the list of Bill Kinnersley:
Should the "Visual xxx" implementations, or implementations in general, be included in this list?
There are a number of language implementations included in this list, for example Microsoft Visual C++ (which is the page for the MS product) or Visual Fortran (which redirects to Fortran). Should those be included? Various other C/C++ compilers (GCC, LCC, LccWin, ICC, etc.), for example, do not have entries here. I think these should be removed, with the obvious exception of languages where the implementation is not really distinct from the language itself. Rwessel (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Is machine code actually a programming language? Most languages are compiled to binary, but does it actually constitute a language itself? I'd say not. Assembly language is listed also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince of Strings (talk • contribs) 16:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Pretty clearly it should. As Machine code says "Numerical machine code (i.e. not assembly code) may be regarded as the lowest-level representation of a compiled and/or assembled computer program or as a primitive and hardware-dependent programming language." And very many languages are not compiled to binary, but are interpreted instead, so that's clearly not a requirement. Rwessel (talk) 07:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's not a programming language, it's merely a machine encoding. We might as well list the alphabet since most programming use letters to make up their keywords. Msnicki (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I would say that assembly and machine code should be considered a programming language. There are multiple dialects for assembly and machine code, mostly catering towards different processors, but this was the case with BASIC as well, often catering towards different purposes or target architectures/machines/purposes. Machine code doesn't require compilation, and it is interpreted directly by the machine, but in theory, it is possible to make an interpreter for any theoretical programming language that has ever existed on any computer that supports that language's computational complexity level (e.g. NP can run P, but P cannot run NP).
A programming language is a notation for writing programs, which are specifications of a computation or algorithm. Some, but not all, authors restrict the term "programming language" to those languages that can express all possible algorithms.
- Also, machine code was the only way to program computers for decades until the advent of the first usable programming languages and was still the primary way until assembly language was introduced (and that was the primary way for everything until C).
My recent addition of Hartmann pipelines to the list was reverted with the statement that "Hartmann pipelines are not a programming language". I disagree. Pipelines is a perfect example of non-procedural, or functional, programing.
---dav4is (talk) 10:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I reverted your addition with that edit summary. Hartmann pipelines are a specification language not a programming language. They're a variation on Unix pipelines that offer additional functionality. But they're not a whole language. There are no provisions for iteration, condition-testing, etc., that you'd expect in a whole language. Basically, it's just a feature that got added to IBM CMS. We might as well list regular Unix pipelines as a programming language distinct from the Unix shells that implement them and we don't do that, either. Msnicki (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I know that there aren't nearly as many languages that are considered "C-family" as there are BASIC dialects, but should they merit their own distinct list? Examples of entries include C, C++, and Objective C. impinball (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'd say not. At the end of the day C and C++ are fairly radically different languages, whereas most Basic dialects tend to share more of a core. I suspect that such a list would end up somewhat like List of C-based programming languages, and while it's something of a judgment call, I'd say that the languages in that (fairly short, at least compared to the Basic list) list share far less than do most of the Basic dialects. In any event, the major reason for the separate Basic list is that there are just so darn many. Rwessel (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Scratch by MIT is a huge coding language. It' needs to be added
This coding language is huge. It's founder Mitchel Resnick got to do a Ted Talk. There is world Scratch day with almost every users from almost every country in the world. There are users from every continent in the world except Antarctica. There is users from every state in the US. There is over 100+ events held on a single day every year called Scratch day. There was a Scratch day held in every state in America. A day were Scratchers meet together to host Scratch days. I held an event in my town. My event was the first Scratch day in my town. I live in Colorado and the nearest event was at a school in Aurora near the state capital Denver. The statistics on there site says that there is over 3 million users who have joined the site over the 6 years the site has existed. It also says there is over 6 million projects created with the coding language. These statistics are updated daily and are 100% correct because the coding language can only be used online or through the offline editor which captures data when you go online. Scratch has it's own wiki with tons of wiki contributors as well. Please add this coding language as Scratch under the S section in the alphabetical list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greshthegreat (talk • contribs) 16:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
SQL is a Programming Language
The SQL Wiki page even says "SQL is a special-purpose programming language designed for managing data held in a relational database management system (RDBMS)." We have other special-purpose languages like AWK listed, so why not SQL?
- I agree.
- It has variables, flow control statements, user defined functions and so on. It's a programming language rather than GPSS. --Kissg (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Either Delphi (which is rather an IDE?) should be referred as Object Pascal, either it should be removed if it considered to be a n IDE, not a Pascal dialect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- There already is an entry for Object Pascal, which is distinct from the entry for Delphi (programming language). Borland/Embarcadero (and users) commonly use the term "Delphi" in either context, for both the IDE and for that particular dialect of Object Pascal. So it's a bit of a mess, but leaving both entries in place seems like the best choice. Rwessel (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
PCBoard Programming Language (aka PPL)
I think community standards prevent me from adding this language, as I was the principle author, but the PCBoard Programming Language (referenced at PCBoard) provided a means to modify / enhance the BBS. It was compiled to a tokenized / "byte code" format which was then interpreted by the runtime embedded in the BBS. CasaDeRobison (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think this is something of a borderline case. The general rule is that the languages need to be notable enough that they have their own article on Wikipedia, before being in this list, but we do have a number of exceptions where a language was a part of something else that has an article (see Game Maker Language, for example). But we're not listing every product that had some ad-hoc programming language in it. PPL appears to be a modest part of PCBoard, unlike GML which at least is a major part of GameMaker. So I'm not really convinced that this PPL (there's another PPL on the list already) is really appropriate to list here. Rwessel (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I personally think it is worthy of inclusion based on various factors, but as I indicated originally, I'm not going to include it myself. That being said, 99 Bottles of Beer  can't be wrong about what PPL stands for. ;) CasaDeRobison (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)