Talk:Alphabetical list of programming languages

There are now programs that are listed but have no page in wikipedia or external link. Would it be better to remove them? statsone 20:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It might be better to have a link to more information, but in the absence of such a link I see no reason why the list should not at least inform us that the language exists. To add links where there aren't any would be a more constructive suggestion. JamesBWatson (talk 09:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it assumed that lists in wikipedia are alphabetized? shouldn't this page be called simply List of programming languages? Kingturtle 16:43 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. We probably can merge this to List of programming languages, which is simply a navigation page currently. -- Taku

I don't agree. The page "List of programming languages" has links to lists arranged by various criteria: this one is simply alphabetical. That makes perfect sense to me. JamesBWatson (talk 16:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to make all these links blue. Perhaps it could be featured or something. [wossi] 21:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is Assembly really a programming language or an Assembly Language? I suppose you could giggle the definitions, but I think it'd be better to put a link in the header, maybe for machine code as well? ~ capi Crimm

I don't understand the question. Assembly languages are languages used for writing programs in: does 'programming language' mean something else? JamesBWatson 09:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is CSS or XML, and I doubt UML is. XSLT is valid(it's turing complete at least, again, I consider it iffy). This page really needs to be cleaned. I'll add a tag later.

What about rendering description languages?[edit]

By these I refer to SGML, XML, HTML for data description and document rendering LateX, TeX, etc. for document rendering Dot , for graph description POVRay, for graphics scene description

These descriptive language do not qualify as programming languages?

Also - in terms of formal language theory, what language class would they fall under?

Hello World[edit]

I'm thinking of writing a bot which will go through all of the pages listed here and add the programming language infobox if it isn't there, and generally clean up the pages since none of them seem to follow any particular template. I'm also considering adding a 'Hello World' section to all of them, since this is the traditional introduction to a programming language. If for some reason a 'Hellow World' example is in appropriate then there could be a message which explains why instead. I think this would improve these pages a lot! I'm in the process of writing a bot to do this all, but I won't run it without autorisation or an approval on the changes I plan to make with it. I'd like your comments. PeteMarsh 08:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Programming Language[edit]

Russell Programming Language

Title: A Logic for the Russell Programming Language Authors: Boehm, Hans-J. Keywords: computer science technical report Issue Date: Feb-1984 Publisher: Cornell University Citation: http://techreports.library.cornell.edu:8081/Dienst/UI/1.0/Display/cul.cs/TR84-593 Abstract: We consider a programming language with a number of characteristics detrimental to conventional axiomatic descriptions. These include arbitrary side effects in expressions, aliasing among variables, very general recursive function declarations, and the ability to pass functions as parameters and return them as results. We give an axiomatic definition of this language based on a novel formalism. We prove the axiomatization sound and relatively complete with respect to a (somewhat nonstandard) denotational semantics. In spite of the nonstandard formalism, most conventional techniques for developing and reasoning about programs can be carried over. (ABRIDGED) URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1813/6433 Appears in Collections: Computer Science Technical Reports

Compilers[edit]

Shouldn't only links to the programming languages themselves be included here? Why are links to compilers of programming languages here? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 09:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

I think a lot of the programming languages are not the least notable. Some of them don't have an article and others have a stub with only two or three sentences. I think it's safe to say that if the language does not currently have an article, it's just not notable. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

How about having a special list at the bottom of the page for deprecated and a.k.a names of programming languages? I feel we're stretching the list a bit too much by having a lot of extra links pointing to the same article. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]