Content deleted Content added
Magioladitis (talk | contribs) m talk page general fixes using AWB (10319) |
→V (Vlang): Reply |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject
{{WikiProject Computing |importance= |science=y |science-importance=Mid |software=y |software-importance=High}}
}}
== Modularity (programming) vs Modular Programming ==
Line 74 ⟶ 75:
:I would say that they are applications, or examples, of modular design in software. Plug-in is especially relevant, as software can be designed from the ground-up using a plug-in based architecture -- like [[Eclipse (software)]]. Add-ons are probably not exactly in the same realm, as they can be created without looking at or interfacing with the original program code. Extensions are really the same thing, it's a redundant article that should probably be merged somehow. [[User:Ham Pastrami|Ham Pastrami]] ([[User talk:Ham Pastrami|talk]]) 22:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
VybeEra [[User:VybeEra|VybeEra]] ([[User talk:VybeEra|talk]]) 05:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
== Block IP ==
Line 103 ⟶ 105:
[[Special:Contributions/88.159.64.210|88.159.64.210]] ([[User talk:88.159.64.210|talk]]) 16:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I would not consider #include to be a rudimentary form of modular programming, it may allow for it, but it really has nothing to do with it. C is completely capable of being fully modular, if not more so than others due to
:Neither would I. But it is an attempt to emulate modular principles with what is available. That is something else than being a modular language. (iow the concept vs the language support). I'm not sure if C can be considered modular. The meaning of an header can be modified by the preprocessor history till then, and thus does not uniquely represents an interface to an implementation I've no clue what the memory access remark is supposed to demonstrate? [[Special:Contributions/88.159.64.210|88.159.64.210]] ([[User talk:88.159.64.210|talk]]) 10:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I would describe modular programming as analogous with [[legos]]. You start at some point, and build up. Each block is a piece of the greater structure. You can move blocks (or groups of blocks) to other structures copying their functionality to the new structure without everything falling apart. They´re both interdependent, and independent at the same time. The whole part in the article about trying to minimize dependencies is absolutely wrong, it's more the direction that the dependencies are going, they should be upper to lower. As in no foundational component can be reliant on a component that is less foundational. That is to say, lego blocks sit on each other, therefore they rely on their foundation, not the other way around. There my 2 cent. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/96.45.180.110|96.45.180.110]] ([[User talk:96.45.180.110|talk]]) 00:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I would also like to lend my voice to this - I'm no expert in programming but I was really surprised to see the list and that the writer asserted that even object-oriented (OO) languages like Java and C++ did not, at any time, support modularity. I would have thought that the concept of OO programming naturally lends itself to that of modularity and I find it illogical for C++ not to "support" modularity. This is so, so odd and I would appreciate if the experts among us can ensure that it is clarified in the article or let the list be expunged! - [[User:BroVic|BroVic]] ([[User talk:BroVic|talk]]) 06:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
:This talk topic is way too big and a confusing mess of who wrote what. None-the-less I'll add to the party. ... I agree that listing languages that support modularity is the opposite of a good idea. I suspect one can write modular code in _any_ language. There are languages with explicit module syntax, but better to not try to list them. (FWIW I think listing stuff in WP is usually a bad idea. But clearly people love to do it. Live and let live.) IMO module programming is a high-level design principal and if followed will result in a codebase that is conceptually modular. If a language has direct support for modules, then it's harder to end up with a non-modular design, but I'm sure it's possible to write a codebase in a language that supports module syntax that is not very modular conceptually. It's possible to write bad code in any language ;) IMO, modular programming is a bigger and more important concept than a language construct. Not saying don't talk about language constructs. But, I suggest minimizing talk of particular languages; focus on the real story. [[User:Stevebroshar|Stevebroshar]] ([[User talk:Stevebroshar|talk]]) 13:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
== Old stuff ==
Line 134 ⟶ 137:
What's up with this? It seems like this editor had something to say, but just didn't finish the thought. I was going to delete the fragment, but left it in because of the very long quote. [[User:Peter Flass|Peter Flass]] ([[User talk:Peter Flass|talk]]) 12:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
== How do modules differ from singletons? ==
Line 156 ⟶ 161:
While [[COBOL]] and [[Java (programming language)|Java]] appear in the list of programming languages that support modules, I see that [[C (programming language)|C]], [[C++]], and [[C Sharp (programming language)|C#]] are noticeably absent. Is this just an oversight? — [[User:Loadmaster|Loadmaster]] ([[User talk:Loadmaster|talk]]) 22:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
== Higher order modules ==
OCaml provides higher order modules. Such we mention this explicitly? I think Racket has something similar. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:ShalokShalom|ShalokShalom]] ([[User talk:ShalokShalom#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ShalokShalom|contribs]]) 10:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== V (Vlang) ==
The V language uses modules. However, it was summarily blocked from inclusion by certain opposing editors. Arguably unfair special new criteria or language preferences are imposed, beyond having a Wikipedia page and notability.
V, based on [https://web.archive.org/web/20250527152413/https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/ TIOBE] and [https://ossinsight.io/collections/programming-language/ GitHub] rankings, is verifiably about as popular as Elixir, OCaml, and D, which were languages placed in the article unchallenged. [[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 07:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
:Central discussion at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing#Significance_of_V_(Vlang)_and_Pony]]. Kindly keep it there rather than copy/pasting comments all over the place. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 13:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
| |||