Talk:Timeline of programming languages: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 09:26, 28 October 2009

Latest revision as of 13:42, 10 June 2025

(72 intermediate revisions by 39 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject Computingbanner shell|class=List|importance=NA}}

{{WikiProject Computing|importance=Mid}}

}}

{{archives}}

==Notes Legend ==

Is the legend entirely necessary? I am minded to remove the '*' entry and have blank cells where a language has no direct predecessor. Comments or votes, anyone? - [[User:Chris Wood|Chris Wood]] 14:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Copied from [[:Programming language/Timeline|Programming language/Timeline]] which is now

:Another point: If the legend is to have any meaning, shouldn't we also abide by its parenthesis notation for designating non-universal proglangs? [[VisiCalc|VISICALC]], for instance, is categorized as a ___domain-specific language, and as such should be marked as non-uni. Or is "universal" to be understood as any language capable of simulating a [[Turing machine]]? (in which case a proglang is to be ''very'' restricted not to be considered "universal", even though it may be thoroughly impractical for doing anything else than ___domain-specific tasks). --[[User:Wernher|Wernher]] 04:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

redirected. -- [[User:Buz Cory|Buz Cory]].

----

Changed language links to be uniformly "X programming

language" which is <i>supposed</i> the standard name for a

programming language page. See [[:disambiguating|disambiguating]]

I've replaced the asterisks in the table with ''"none (unique language)"'' to match what the key was saying - would this still make sense if it just said "none"? Despite ''"( Entry ) means a non-universal programming language"'' in the key, nothing actually seemed to be marked up as being this, so I've removed the legend entirely. --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 10:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Some links now need fixing. For instance, the page

[[:C language|C language]] needs renaming to [[C (programming language)|C programming language]].

== Red and Blue ==

<i>Fix the destinations, not the pointers to them</i>.

-- [[User:Buz Cory|Buz Cory]]

----

Some things are here that don't belong here.

Notably Compilers (MicroSoft C), GUIs (Microsoft Windows)

and OSen (CP/M, Linux).

Red and Blue, listed under [[Timeline_of_programming_languages#1970s|1970s]], point to [[Red (programming language)]] and [[Blue (programming language)]]. Apparently these are completely different and unrelated programming languages that just happen to be named like that. — [[Special:Contributions/80.174.59.87|80.174.59.87]] ([[User talk:80.174.59.87|talk]]) 19:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Where a particular compiler <i>extends</i> the language

(Such as the Borland Pascal compilers did), it should be

here.

Where it is a pretty standard implementation, it does not.

== Picture ==

I will be removing things that seem inappropriate.

-- [[User:Buz Cory|Buz Cory]]

It would be really awesome to see this timeline as an image of a tree. Each language should link to its predecessor (parent) if it has one. Can someone please do this? [[Special:Contributions/118.210.2.41|118.210.2.41]] ([[User talk:118.210.2.41|talk]]) 12:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

===Analytical engine===

The analytical engine shouldn't be on this list either, I don't think. It was a computational machine, but it did not run on a pgoramming language, rather on punchcards. Also the machine wasn't never tested until 1991. [[User:Subversive|Subversive]] 07:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

:here? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Genealogical_tree_of_programming_languages.svg [[Special:Contributions/89.76.146.175|89.76.146.175]] ([[User talk:89.76.146.175|talk]]) 01:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

While it's true that the Analytical Engine was a computer rather than a programming language, it did have a machine language which is what Ada Lovelace used to write her program. As for the punchcards, I fail to see your point. All computer programs had to be punched onto paper tape or punch cards until the mid-60s. In fact when I first learned to program in the mid-70s I was still using punch cards for my FORTRAN code. Each punch card had one language statement punched into it. This was just as true for the Analytical Engine as it was for the CDC 6600 which I last fed punched cards to. -- [[User:Derek Ross|Derek Ross]] | [[User talk:Derek Ross | Talk]] 04:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

::Even more detailed picture here: http://hopl.info/images/genealogies/tester-country.jpg [[User:Pasvikdalen|Pasvikdalen]] ([[User talk:Pasvikdalen|talk]])

----

Am making a second section for items where the date is

unknown or questionable.

-- [[User:Buz Cory|Buz Cory]]

----

I see you moved the legend back to the bottom of the page, and that's fine, but

I think the link back to the [[:programming language|programming language]] page should have been kept.

--[[User:Hornlo|loh]]

:----

:As a matter of fact, I was forced to reformat some (select/paste from NS6 to my editor lost the leading spaces) and so put a new legend at the top. You're right about the [[:programming language|programming language]] link, it is now at the top. I only left the old legend at the bottom because I thought someone might want to make something of it. --[[User:Buz Cory|Buz Cory]]

----

I agree that there is far too many versions of the same things. If we are going to include all languages on this time line it will be unusable. Really it should just show the major movements in the programming world.

:----

:Actually, if <i>only</i> languages are mentioned, there are several hundred, probably (including all variations). Not an unworkable number. There is a separate hardware timeline page, and separate timelines for OSen, and another for Commercial End User Apps might be a good idea.

== Inclusion of yet another language LSS or Lotus Script ? ==

:Just don't mix them all on one page! --[[User:Buz Cory|Buz Cory]]

----

I think you are out by an order of magnitude for the number of languages. Now I don't dispute each of these languages deserve a page on the wikipedia, but by having a time line consisting of x000 languages is not really going to convery much useful info.

I wondered why it wasn't included. But it merely may be caused by the lack of individuals to post anything in Wikipedia.

What I may get around to is for the Lisp family, just show LISP, Common-Lisp, and Scheme in the main time-line but ALSO have a LISP-time-line.

It says below it was introduced in Lotus Notes R4, which I believe was around 1995.<br />

Other candidates would be FORTRAN-like, C-like, dBase-like, Pascal-like languages etc.

Below, is an excerpt taken from the IBM Notes 9.0.1, Domino Designer Basic User Guide and reference (ie. a Notes Database, with navigation builtin, as with all Lotus documentation)<br />

Any views on this approach?

:----

:If you are right on numbers, your approach is probably better. For the moment, I think this page, as it is, is probably best. If/when it gets too big, we can always split it. --[[User:Buz Cory|Buz Cory]]

(http://www-01.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSVRGU_9.0.1/com.ibm.designer.domino.main.doc/LSAZ_WHAT_IS_LOTUSSCRIPT_3179_OVERVIEW.html)<br />

----

<br />

I noticed that some entries here are at variance with the corresponding ones at [[:History of computing|History of computing]]. I have no way of deciding these, but I think they should be mentioned and eventually, we should try to resolve these. --AxelBoldt

<big><small>What is LotusScript?</small></big><br />

LotusScript® is an embedded, BASIC scripting language with a powerful set of language extensions that enable object-oriented application development within and across IBM® software applications. LotusScript allows you to place more complex scripts in a greater variety of locations and events than traditional macros. LotusScript and its development toolset provide a common programming environment across IBM applications on all platforms supported by IBM software (such as Windows, AIX®, Linux). It is available in:<br />

* IBM Notes® Release 4 and later

* IBM Lotus® Approach® 96 Edition and later

* IBM Lotus Freelance Graphics® 96 Edition and later

* IBM Lotus Word Pro® 96 Edition and later

* IBM Lotus 1-2-3® 97 Edition and later

* IBM Lotus Enterprise Solution Builder

<br />

LotusScript offers a wide variety of features. Its interface to IBM software is through predefined object classes. The products oversee the compilation and loading of user scripts and automatically include class definitions to allow more efficient coding. LotusScript extends the development capabilities of IBM software by providing:<br />

* The ability to place scripts in a variety of objects and events in many IBM software applications. LotusScript has a set of extensions beyond Visual Basic, that provide additional power and utility when writing applications using IBM software.

* A debugger and syntax-directed editor.

* Access to a broad range of product functions through the classes defined for each product.

* Access to external class libraries defined using the the LSX Toolkit.

<ref>http://www-01.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSVRGU_9.0.1/com.ibm.designer.domino.main.doc/LSAZ_WHAT_IS_LOTUSSCRIPT_3179_OVERVIEW.html</ref>

Language Programming Timeline Computing History

[[User:RosePet|RosePet]] ([[User talk:RosePet|talk]]) 14:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

=============================================================

FORTRAN 59 54-57

LISP 59 58-60

Algol 58 60

APL 62 61

COBOL 60 59-61

Turbo Pascal 83 84

Ada 83 79

Lisp: as explained in [[:LISP_programming_language|LISP_programming_language]], McCarthy claims to have invented it in 1958, he makes this claim in his 1960 paper. It is doubtful that any implementation actually existed at the time (but that is true of many languages). --[[User:drj|drj]]

What date do we use in the Programming language timeline: the date of first implementation or of first description? --AxelBoldt

perl6? [[Special:Contributions/73.162.49.184|73.162.49.184]] ([[User talk:73.162.49.184|talk]]) 03:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I would say first implementation or first description. There are plenty of languages in which the implementation came first (perl, python, C) and plenty of languages in which the description came first (Lisp, Algol?, CPL, intercal). Reading the papers that the creators of these languages wrote one gets the impression that if the implementation came first then that was when the language was created and if the description came first then that was when the language was created. Which all seems pretty sensible to me.

{{reflist-talk}}

Languages that evolve from others, for example B to NB to C, are more problematic because there was probably a continuous series of compilers that grew away from language and towards another. Even once the bootstrapping stage is reached.

[[Intercal]] is an interesting case as well because the language existed for 8 years before anyone wrote an implementation of it. Similarly it is not clear to me whether [[CPL]] ever had an implementation. In what sense are these computer programming languages? The facts seem to indicate that computer programming languages are more uses than the mere programming of computers, they can be used to express ideas between programmers or mathematicians for example (indeed, [[:programs are speech|programs are speech]]!), so it isn't even necessary to have an implementation to be called a computer programming language. That was a bit more than I intended to say really. --[[User:drj|drj]]

:Even when a language hasn't been implemented it may still be very influential. CPL led to BCPL which led to B which led to C which led to C++, therefore CPL is well worth recording. CPL may well have been implemented in the early 1970s as a student project but it doesn't really matter. The ISWIM language has ''never'' been implemented as far as I know, yet the modern functional languages such as ML, Haskell, Miranda, etc. owe a lot to it, so again it is well worth describing. -- [[User:Derek Ross|Derek Ross]]

== ALGAE ==

[[RPG programming language|RPG]] is missing in the timeline!

In the paper "Computing at LASL in the 1940s and 1950s" by Roger B. Lazarus et al., chapter II "Software and Operations" by Edward A. Voorhees" is stated that:

[[PHP]] ?

----

C++ and C with Classes were in "unknown or questionable dates" but need not to since Stroustrup describes the years pretty accurately on his home pages. So I moved them to the normal timeline.

----

Hard to believe that 1975 Altair has had [[Steve Allen]] as a co-author since the first

iteration of this article. (BASIC would make a boring talk-show) [[User:Dmsar|Dmsar]] 21:31 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

----

{{cquote|In 1958 the ALGAE language was implemented at LASL for the 704. It was a preprocessor to FORTRAN (which was first issued by IBM in 1957). The language contained a control structure that resemble arithmetic expressions.}}

Java definitely has predecessors. Its line of descent is Algol > BCPL > C > C++

You only need to look at its syntax to see that. Why remove C++ ? -- [[User:Derek Ross|Derek Ross]] 17:33, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

----

The year headings ("pre 1950s", "1950s", "1960s",...) shouldn't have colspan="3" when there are now 4 columns. For forward compatibiliy, make it colspan="0", ie span all columns. (It's in the W3C standard: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/tables.html#adef-colspan )

----

FORTRAN IV is listed as originating both in 1962 and 1966.

I wasn't around back then so can not claim to be an expert,

but all my information suggests 1962. Perhaps the entry

in 1966 was meant to be FORTRAN 66? Am new at wikipedia

and will attempt to update it if I don't hear back.

The author himself is claiming that the language was implemented in 1958.

Here's a reference which supports my claim re changing

it to say FORTRAN 66 instead of FORTRAN IV in 1966:

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/languages/fortran/ch1-1.html

[[User:JMCorey|JMCorey]] 22:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So the year 1951 in this timeline does not hold, in my opinion.

==Lambda calculus==

I have removed the lambda calculus from the list.

Hugs, [[User:Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira|Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira]] ([[User talk:Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira|talk]]) 18:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The [[lambda calculus]] as originally defined and used by Church was not a programming language. It was a notation for clarifying the semantics of free and bound variables. Church's interesting (and surprising) result was that this very simple system can support full arithmetic. It was [[John McCarthy (computer scientist)|John McCarthy]] who took the lambda notation and used it for anonymous functions in Lisp, though he did ''not'' actually exploit (or understand!) its full power, which was only done later by Sussman and Steele. If the lambda calculus is going to be in here, then all sorts of other mathematical systems should be, too, including: [[combinatory logic]], [[finite state automata]], [[regular expression]]s, and even [[first-order logic]] and&mdash;why not?&mdash;the conventional mathematical notation of functions and operators! All of these have been used as bases for programming languages. --[[User:Macrakis|Macrakis]] 7 July 2005 13:58 (UTC)

==PHP= Adding ===

Our [[PHP]] page includes a start date of 1994, and an author of [[Rasmus Lerdorf]], rather than PHP3/1997/unknown as listed in this timeline. Any idea why? [[User:Ojw|Ojw]] 13:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

:I believe the [[PHP]] page is right. But PHP 3 is a rewrite, in 1997, I have added author. [[User:Splang|Splang]] 07:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

References: [https://books.google.com.br/books?id=qB819m2ibUQC&lpg=PA13&ots=rByQTz-fbT&dq=In%201958%20the%20ALGAE%20language%20was%20implemented%20at%20LASL%20for%20the%20704.%20It%20was%20a%20preprocessor%20to%20FORTRAN%20(which%20was%20first%20issued%20by%20IBM%20in%201957).%20The%20language%20contained%20a%20control%20structure%20that%20resemble%20arithmetic%20expressions.&hl=pt-BR&pg=PA13#v=onepage&q=In%201958%20the%20ALGAE%20language%20was%20implemented%20at%20LASL%20for%20the%20704.%20It%20was%20a%20preprocessor%20to%20FORTRAN%20(which%20was%20first%20issued%20by%20IBM%20in%201957).%20The%20language%20contained%20a%20control%20structure%20that%20resemble%20arithmetic%20expressions.&f=false here]

== Inclusion of languages ==

I think Fortran 2003 should be included, because it shows how one of the oldest languages is still being developed and in active use. --[[User:R.Koot|R.Koot]] 13:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

And note that why a preprocessor for a language released in 1957 would be built in 1951? [[User:Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira|Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira]] ([[User talk:Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira|talk]]) 15:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That's true. This timeline does have a place for minor languages which were very influential or which formed part of the ancestry of major ones: hence Cowsel, ISWIM, and CPL. It also has a place for current development of major languages. But that doesn't mean that it should include all the minor languages ever invented. To do so would lead to a forest/trees problem. -- [[User:Derek Ross|Derek Ross]] | [[User talk:Derek Ross | Talk]] 05:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

: Could you add Fortran back to the list, please. I don't want to get banned for a 3RR. --[[User:R.Koot|R.Koot]] 13:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

In [http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/Knuth_Don_X4100/PDF_index/k-7-pdf/k-7-u2470-Voorhees-ALGAE-I.pdf this] paper, page i, introduction, Edward Voorhees state:

== Legend ==

Is the legend entirely necessary? I am minded to remove the '*' entry and have blank cells where a language has no direct predecessor. Comments or votes, anyone? - [[User:Chris Wood|Chris Wood]] 14:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

{{cquote|ALGAE I makes use of FORTRAN I to form the actual 704 code...}}

:Another point: If the legend is to have any meaning, shouldn't we also abide by its parenthesis notation for designating non-universal proglangs? [[VisiCalc|VISICALC]], for instance, is categorized as a ___domain-specific language, and as such should be marked as non-uni. Or is "universal" to be understood as any language capable of simulating a [[Turing machine]]? (in which case a proglang is to be ''very'' restricted not to be considered "universal", even though it may be thoroughly impractical for doing anything else than ___domain-specific tasks). --[[User:Wernher|Wernher]] 04:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[[User:Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira|Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira]] ([[User talk:Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira|talk]]) 17:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

== ASP? ==

what about ASP or ASP.net(not a website)? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/174.83.19.46|174.83.19.46]] ([[User talk:174.83.19.46#top|talk]]) 20:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Jacquard Loom ==

The current noun is of course the machine, not any language.

From what I understand the 'card format'-as such would in modern computing terms be machine code. One where the pattern on the card correspond physically to the intended weave pattern.

Question is, was there a single format, or different ones for different machines at different times? Does this format have a proper term? I also think that if there's a large abstraction threshold between these format or formats and the rest of the items on this timeline it should be mentioned.--[[User:Nngnna|Nngnna]] ([[User talk:Nngnna|talk]]) 14:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC) [edited for clarity 6:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)]

== GDScript ==

GDScript was probably born around between 2010 and 2014 and it's based on Python.

It's difficult to be more precise since it has been developed inside a company that was using it for internal purposes and on the project website they talk about its history but there is no mention of specific years. One of its creators, Juan Linietsky, said that they had been using other scripting languages "for ten years" and then they decided to write a language of their own.

: https://rmll.ubicast.tv/videos/introduction-au-moteur-godot/ (go to 41m00s) <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2001:B07:6453:BBAD:855F:E0B8:62DA:3603|2001:B07:6453:BBAD:855F:E0B8:62DA:3603]] ([[User talk:2001:B07:6453:BBAD:855F:E0B8:62DA:3603#top|talk]]) 23:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Short Code ==

Why is Short code listed with different authors in both 1949 and 1950. And what is Brief Code, the predecessor of the second time Short Code is listed? [[User:Akeosnhaoe|Akeosnhaoe]] ([[User talk:Akeosnhaoe|talk]]) 07:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

== Language Versions ==

I was wondering what the consistency between updates to languages is? For example, all the changes to C and C++ seem to be listed as separate entries, but even major changes to other languages, such as Python 2 to Python 3, or Java 1.4 to Java 5 don't seem to be treated in the same way. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:4EA8:1801:5050:740F:833E:891B|2A00:23C4:4EA8:1801:5050:740F:833E:891B]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C4:4EA8:1801:5050:740F:833E:891B|talk]]) 15:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

==About Chrome==

: I think entries for Python 3 and Java 5 could be listed. I'm not sure of the exact inclusion criteria, see next section --[[User:Mathnerd314159|Mathnerd314159]] ([[User talk:Mathnerd314159|talk]]) 03:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, this is more a compiler than a programming language. I request advices about that. [[User:Splang|Splang]]

== Object-CChanging incriteria 1983to not 1982notability ==

It seems that Object-C was released in 1983:

http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/news/languageposter_0504.html

"Historically significant" is hard to prove and the inclusion criteria the list actually uses seems different, for example C99 is not particularly historically relevant as for the most part it just copied features from C++. What does everyone think about changing the criteria to ''notable'' programming languages? Notability is easy to verify compared to historical significance. I don't think the table will grow too much due to this change but if it does we can just split the table across several pages. --[[User:Mathnerd314159|Mathnerd314159]] ([[User talk:Mathnerd314159|talk]]) 03:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

== Fortress ==

Other quite important langauges: Fortress (new Fortran + Java for scientific calculations), Maude (logical and functional programing), Sather and pSather (pure object oriented language and big iterators). <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/149.156.67.102|149.156.67.102]] ([[User talk:149.156.67.102|talk]]) 14:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: C99 is very historically relevant, if only for the fact many large projects still use this particular dialect. This list should only include languages that break compatibility, otherwise you will end up with the current mess where you have some languages listed multiple times even though they are backwards compatible dialects and others not listed even though they are not backwards compatible.

== Odd ideas of "historically important programming languages" ==

I am highly skeptical of a number of the languages listed from 1995 up to the present, particularly the really recent ones. Determining the historical importance of a language is difficult when it's only existed for a few years. Furthermore, there are a number of unusual entries which don't seem to fit - [[PIKT]] (1998) is an IDS, not a programming language; [[Cω]] is an extension to C#, not a language of its own; and there are separate entries for each revision of various languages (C, Fortran, and ADA are particular offenders).

: To show the absurdity: Java is only included once despite huge changes to the bytecode. Python even though there are multiple backwards incompatible versions. Meanwhile C and C++ are listed multiple times, even though they are only standard changes, and compatible ones at that. Rather than including a new version every major change (which is somewhat arbitrary) the criteria should be whether previous application binary interfaces are broken (can I write C++03 code with a C++20 compiler? Yes I can).

What's needed urgently here is a definition of what we mean by "historically important". Right now, there appears to be a problem with new languages getting added indiscriminately, which ruins the utility of the timeline. [[User:Zetawoof|Zetawoof]]_{([[User_talk:Zetawoof|&zeta;]])} 22:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

: [[User:Bsdrevise|Bsdrevise]] ([[User talk:Bsdrevise|talk]]) 13:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

::Well Visual Studio didn't support C99 for a long time (until after publication of C11), causing many projects to avoid it (e.g. [https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-February/116258.html]) so not sure what large projects you're referring to. Of course there are projects using it but every version of every language has projects written in it.

Well there's a few ways that significance could be defined. One reasonable definition of historically significant could be gained by counting how many other languages it has influenced. That would rule out most of the "I just invented it" entries but still allow a place for highly influential but unimplemented languages like ISWIM or CPL. We don't need to set the threshold very high. If it influenced one or two later languages that would be enough. -- [[User:Derek Ross|Derek Ross]] | [[User talk:Derek Ross|Talk]] 18:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

::I think the most enforceable way to make it consistent would be to only list each language once and remove all the extra versions. Then the question is whether C89 is a different language from C99, to which the answer is no (pretty clearly, C99 is backwards compatible to C89), whereas for others it is less clear, e.g. ALGOL 60 vs ALGOL 68 - but there I think it is clear that all of the implementations are distinct hence ALGOL 68 is a distinct language from ALGOL 60. So with this policy we wouldn't list Python 3 (the incompatibilies are minor, many programs run unchanged in Python 3), and similarly Java and C++ are single entries. --[[User:Mathnerd314159|Mathnerd314159]] ([[User talk:Mathnerd314159|talk]]) 20:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

: If it doesn't have its own Wikipedia article, it's probably not notable enough, so you could set the threshold there.--[[User:Fiskjuice|Fiskjuice]] ([[User talk:Fiskjuice|talk]]) 20:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

:::I should note this is all to deal with the "historically relevant" criteria; using notability / WTAF these resolve simply: [[C99]] thru [[C17]] exist, as does [[Algol 68]], hence they will be listed, but [[Python 3]] is a redirect so will not be listed. [[User:Mathnerd314159|Mathnerd314159]] ([[User talk:Mathnerd314159|talk]]) 20:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

:'''Support.''' Notability defined as [[WP:WTAF]] works well for most lists and I would support that here. It is indeed less subjective than historically significant. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 19:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

::True -- [[User:Derek Ross|Derek Ross]] | [[User talk:Derek Ross|Talk]]'' 01:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

:Correction: I was initially worried about the list growing, but I looked through the list again and actually there are quite a few redlinks / nonlinks so the list would end up shrinking, at least initially. The later-dated ones such as SAM76 seem fine to remove but the early 1950's redlinks should probably be preserved by moving them to the [[History of programming languages]] article as prose. --[[User:Mathnerd314159|Mathnerd314159]] ([[User talk:Mathnerd314159|talk]]) 05:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

== Seed7 ==

The article about the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seed7|Seed7 programming language has been deleted]]. I think we can remove it from this timeline as well. [[User:Ghettoblaster|Ghettoblaster]] ([[User talk:Ghettoblaster|talk]]) 12:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

: Done. List is still a mess (I need to get to cleaning it up someday), but marginally less so. [[User:Zetawoof|Zetawoof]]_{([[User_talk:Zetawoof|&zeta;]])} 07:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

: Having an article and being on this list are two different things. There are languages which do not get an article, but still deserve to be mentioned at some places. [[User:Hans Bauer|Hans Bauer]] ([[User talk:Hans Bauer|talk]]) 09:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

:: For languages of historical value which we just haven't written about yet, I can see that. However, this is a language which we ''specifically'' opted to not have an article on a few years ago, because it had very few users and no influence on other programming languages. For these exact reasons, it's also inappropriate in a timeline of programming languages. [[User:Zetawoof|Zetawoof]]_{([[User_talk:Zetawoof|&zeta;]])} 18:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

== Fortran 77 ==

::: I just removed it again. <span style="white-space:nowrap">—[[User:Piet Delport|Piet Delport]] <small>([[User talk:Piet Delport|talk]]) 2009-10-16 11:09</small></span>

This timeline is missing one of the most historical and notable recent versions of of Fortran, Fortran 77. It should be included. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Lbecque|Lbecque]] ([[User talk:Lbecque#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Lbecque|contribs]]) 23:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:: I would like to add in response to Hans Bauer that while lists in general may mention languages that do not deserve full articles, this particular list is for ''historically important'' languages, which should assume enough notability for an article. <span style="white-space:nowrap">—[[User:Piet Delport|Piet Delport]] <small>([[User talk:Piet Delport|talk]]) 2009-10-16 11:20</small></span>

== Jacquard Loom and programming language ==

== legend?? ==

what do the 2 legends mean? especialy the first one. the 2rd one maybe means that "*" in 1st column means a unique language (no direct predecessor). It isnot necessary that "<year>" appears here. in 1st legend, "(entry)" the bracket in the "name" column? who can help me? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Xujianguo|Xujianguo]] ([[User talk:Xujianguo|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Xujianguo|contribs]]) 04:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: I agree, I don't see the logic behind the legends. [[User:Mahjongg|Mahjongg]] ([[User talk:Mahjongg|talk]]) 16:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, Jacquard Loom had [[Program_(machine)|programs]], so it was "programmable" (last paragraph in wikilink), but does that automatically means that it had a [[programming language]]? [[User:MarMi wiki|MarMi wiki]] ([[User talk:MarMi wiki|talk]]) 01:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

== Definition of historic importance ==

:It was programmed with punched cards. The hole pattern would have formed a language but not necessarily a human-readable one. However even machine languages can be (and many years ago were) used as programming languages. -- [[User:Derek Ross|Derek Ross]] &#124; [[User talk:Derek Ross|Talk]] 01:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

:Apparently it can be interpreted like that ([https://therenegadecoder.com/code/what-is-a-programming-language/ What is a Programming Language?] and [https://therenegadecoder.com/code/who-gets-to-decide-what-is-and-isnt-a-programming-language/ Who Gets to Decide What Is and Isn’t a Programming Language?]). [[User:MarMi wiki|MarMi wiki]] ([[User talk:MarMi wiki|talk]]) 12:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

== Year ==

In order to make this article more useful, and apropos the above discussion, i'd like to propose some objective inclusion guidelines. Comments and improvements are most welcome; it would be great if we could settle on a consensus version of this to put at the top of this talk page or somewhere.

The article doesn't mention what year is taken into account, which is the key element of a chronology. Is that the year of invention, of the first public release even if alpha/beta, the first stable implementation? For example:

;Criteria

:* At minimum, entries should have an article that explains the language's historic importance. (Stubs or redlinks are acceptable as long as there is no doubt that an appropriate article could be written.)

:* In addition, entries should be at least one of:

:*# '''Pioneering'''

:*#: Languages that innovated significant ideas, concepts, or paradigms (even if they were not otherwise influential or widely used).

:*#: The status of "significant" is somewhat subjective, but it should be reasonably widely accepted as such by neutral third parties: it's not enough for a language's authors to think it significant.

:*#: Examples: [[Plankalkül]], [[ALGOL]], [[Information Processing Language|IPL]], [[Lisp (programming language)|Lisp]], [[Forth (programming language)|Forth]], [[Simula]], [[Prolog]]

:*# '''Influential'''

:*#: Languages that inspired other historically important languages (even if they were not otherwise pioneering or widely used).

:*#: A minor language being the predecessor of several other minor languages is probably not important unless one of those descendants become historically important.

:*#: Examples: [[Combined Programming Language|CPL]]/[[BCPL]]/[[B (programming language)|B]], [[ISWIM]], [[Scheme (programming language)|Scheme]], [[ABC (programming language)|ABC]]

:*# '''Widely used'''

:*#: Languages that found particularly widespread usage (even if they were not otherwise pioneering or influential).

:*#: One rule of thumb is any "''x'' language" that's also an "''x'' industry".

:*#: Examples: [[COBOL]], [[C++]], [[Java (programming language)|Java]], [[C Sharp (programming language)|C#]], [[PHP]], [[JavaScript]]

* Carbon is listed as a 2022 language, but it's only a project and is not defined yet, let alone implemented.

<span style="white-space:nowrap">—[[User:Piet Delport|Piet Delport]] <small>([[User talk:Piet Delport|talk]]) 2009-10-20 08:28</small></span>

* Ruby is listed as a 1995 language, but it was conceived in 1993, had a first public beta release (or series of releases) in December 1995, and only had its first stable implementation in December 1996 (http://blog.nicksieger.com/articles/2006/10/20/rubyconf-history-of-ruby/).

* Gleam is listed as a 2024 language, but was created in 2016, and began getting numbered versions in 2019.

If the meaning of "year" is not clearly specified, more such discrepancies are bound to happen. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A02:A03F:C0B9:7C00:9BB:1A34:540D:52A8|2A02:A03F:C0B9:7C00:9BB:1A34:540D:52A8]] ([[User talk:2A02:A03F:C0B9:7C00:9BB:1A34:540D:52A8#top|talk]]) 15:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Following the above, i'd like to propose a new column to the list that very briefly summarizes why the language is on the list, under a heading of "Significance" or similar. A sentence fragment from the language's article should suffice; for example, [[Plankalkül]] was the "First high-level non-von Neumann programming language". <span style="white-space:nowrap">—[[User:Piet Delport|Piet Delport]] <small>([[User talk:Piet Delport|talk]]) 2009-10-23 00:44</small></span>

On the same note, "Predecessors" should be defined too. From the look of it, it's rather "Influencing languages" than "Predecessors", or the whole table has to be reviewed. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A02:A03F:C0B9:7C00:9BB:1A34:540D:52A8|2A02:A03F:C0B9:7C00:9BB:1A34:540D:52A8]] ([[User talk:2A02:A03F:C0B9:7C00:9BB:1A34:540D:52A8#top|talk]]) 16:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Having seen similar criteria implemented for other articles in the past, and having seen disastrous results, I'm going to offer my $0.02 here.<br />Red link exclusion has become a rather serious problem. There are '''many''' otherwise well meaning editors who bulk remove "red links" from articles with the notion of ''"if it doesn't yet have an article it isn't notable"''. (I can cite specifics but it might offend a few people.) This is a logical fallacy in that often red links simply signify things that people have not yet written about. In the case of this specific article, the current red links all seem to be topics that really should be written about but are mostly older or historic languages that aren't getting too much attention right now.<br />As you mention above, significance is subjective; I'd actually consider it to be highly subjective. This isn't a ''"timeline of '''historic''' programming languages"'' so trying to artificially limit inclusion based on pioneering, influential, and widely used doesn't sound like a good idea to me.<br />Perhaps a better way (assuming this article has actually had a problem with inclusion, although I ''personally'' don't see a problem here) would be to simply limit inclusion to programming languages that have preexisting articles '''or''' would otherwise meet the notability guideline appropriate to this genre of articles should an article about the language be written?<br />On a strictly editorial note, is there a reason to have so much bold text in this article? I find it seems to distract from the rest of the content. It also seems like the ''Predecessor(s)'' column should be the rightmost column and not the leftmost column.<br />--[[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 09:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In https://archive.org/details/hyper_number_4_5 is possible to find some referrences to other languages in the section Software. Some expert to tell if it can be useful to add some to the wikipedia articles. Best Regards <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/190.160.142.123|190.160.142.123]] ([[User talk:190.160.142.123#top|talk]]) 23:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:: Hmm? This is ''exactly'' a "timeline of '''historically important''' programming languages", as the first line of this article states (and its content confirms, and the discussion above elaborates): its very usefulness depends on it. I'm not trying to change the selection criteria, i'm just describing it (as the stand-alone list guideline [[Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lead and selection criteria|recommends]]).

:: Regarding "red link exclusion", nobody has suggested it: the proposal above specifically points out that redlinks are okay. (If you're concerned about the precedent of Seed7 [[#Seed7|above]], the entry was removed because it was non-notable, ''not'' because it was a redlink.) <span style="white-space:nowrap">—[[User:Piet Delport|Piet Delport]] <small>([[User talk:Piet Delport|talk]]) 2009-10-23 16:56</small></span>

== Assemblers (standard and "higher level") omitted ==

:::No, I wasn't thinking of Seed7. I've seen a number of articles completely gutted of red links by editors using the reasoning I mentioned above.<br />The article is named ''Timeline of programming languages'' and the lead section ''used'' to say ''"This is a chronological list of programming languages."'' and has been reworded numerous times up to the point where it is now. People are going to continue to add entries with the current lead. Something like what was in the lead in 2005 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_programming_languages&oldid=28388876] (except using a hatnote) might limit inclusion more than the current lead. Truth is, there is little, if any reason to limit a properly structured ''timeline'' article to only "historical" programming languages. Heck, I just now noticed how syntactically malformed the current wikitable code and section links are... --[[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 18:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

IBM's mainframe OS and program products were (and are) written in various assemblers starting with the S/360 Project (see Mythical Man Month, Fred Brooks). Certainly prior mainframes also had assemblers.

== Concept versus implementation ==

During the S/360 period and beyond, aside from assemblers (which were designed for large systems and included a Turing-Complete macro facility) there were also "assemblers" like PL/S, PL/AS, PL/X which cross compiled assembler-like code. Much of this code is still in production today with z/OS. Anyway, all these are important pieces in the history of programming language development. IBM's latest variant, HLASM (high level assembler) is still in active use today both at IBM and at systems software vendors.

At the moment, a number of languages have separate entries, for "concept" and "implementation": <blockquote>[[Fortran]], [[Information Processing Language|IPL]], [[Lisp (programming language)|Lisp]], [[COMIT]], [[COBOL]], [[TRAC (programming language)|TRAC]], [[APL (programming language)|APL]], [[Simula]], [[ALGOL]], [[PL/I]], [[Forth (programming language)|Forth]], [[Icon (programming language)|Icon]], [[Self (programming language)|Self]]</blockquote>

Also, we should not forget PL/360 which was a Wirth creation similar to PL/S and friends. [[Special:Contributions/192.19.207.250|192.19.207.250]] ([[User talk:192.19.207.250|talk]]) 08:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

While this is not necessarily a bad idea, i think it ends up cluttering the already-sprawling list without adding much extra value.

:{{done}} The PL/S languages are similar and discussed on on the [[IBM PL/S]] page, so I just added that. And PL/360 is apparently called [[PL360]] without the hyphen, also added. HLASM is apparently just a dialect of [[Basic Assembly Language]], so I added BAL rather than HLASM. [[User:Mathnerd314159|Mathnerd314159]] ([[User talk:Mathnerd314159|talk]]) 16:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

'''Proposal''': Merge the "(implementation)" entries into their corresponding "(concept)" entry (excluding [[Plankalkül]] and [[ISWIM]], which should keep their qualifier), extending their origin year range as necessary.

== Shakespeare ==

<span style="white-space:nowrap">—[[User:Piet Delport|Piet Delport]] <small>([[User talk:Piet Delport|talk]]) 2009-10-20 17:37</small></span>

As the article purports to list notable programming languages, I propose to remove the Shakespeare Programming Language (2001) from the list. The referenced article fails to explain why it is a notable programming language. I actually refers to another esoteric language (Chef) about making code look like something that is not code as one of its properties. [[User:Rmc1134|Rmc1134]] ([[User talk:Rmc1134|talk]]) 15:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

== Versions and variants ==

== Should we separate compiled/interpreted languages from the other early ones? ==

In addition to the concept versus implementation entries (see above), some languages have multiple entries for different versions or variants of them, which is probably overkill: it should be enough to list only the first or most prominent member of a closely associated line or group (unless more than one member can be argued to be separately historically important). Here's a quick, crude listing of entries that link to the same article, or otherwise appear closely related:

I'm talking about the earliest entries.

* [[ALGOL]]: ALGOL 58, ALGOL 60, [[ALGOL 68]], [[ALGOL W]]

* [[Autocode]]: Mark I Autocode

* [[BASIC]]: [[Altair BASIC]], [[CBASIC]], [[GFA BASIC]], [[GW-BASIC]], [[MAI Basic Four|BASIC FOUR]], [[PowerBASIC]], [[QuickBASIC]], [[STOS BASIC]], [[True BASIC]], [[Turbo Basic]]

* [[C++]]: C with classes, Standard C++

* [[COWSEL]]: POP-1

* [[Common Lisp]]: ANSI Common Lisp

* [[Distributed Application Specification Language]]: DASL (AUS), DASL (BOS)

* [[ECMAScript]]: LiveScript, [[JavaScript]]

* [[Erlang (programming language)|Erlang]]: Open Source Erlang

* [[Forth (programming language)|Forth]]: ANS FORTH

* [[Fortran]]: FORTRAN "I", FORTRAN II, FORTRAN IV, FORTRAN 66

* [[Information Processing Language|IPL]]: IPL II, IPL V

* [[JOSS]]: JOSS I, JOSS II

* [[MUMPS]]: Standard MUMPS

* [[Modula]]: Modula-2, Modula-3

* [[Oberon (programming language)|Oberon]]: Object Oberon, Oberon-2, Oberon-07

* [[Pascal (programming language)|Pascal]]: [[Object Pascal]], [[Turbo Pascal]], [[Embarcadero Delphi]], [[Component Pascal]]

* [[REXX]]: NetRexx, Object REXX

* [[SNOBOL]]: SNOBOL3, SNOBOL4

* [[Smalltalk]]: Smalltalk-76, [[Squeak]]

* [[Speakeasy (computational environment)|Speakeasy]]: Speakeasy-2, Speakeasy-3, Speakeasy-IV

* [[ML (programming language)]]: [[Standard ML]], [[F Sharp (programming language)]]

* [[Visual Basic]]: [[Visual Basic .NET]]

I'd think so. I'm not saying delete these entries, not at all (in fact some additions might be in order), just to separate them into a "non-compiled or interpreted" category rather than just chronologically. I think this'd clarify to the reader what's going on here.

Many of these can probably be merged; any comments on which ones shouldn't be?

(Assembly languages might also be included with compiled/interpreted languages, I don't know enough to know). It it's not compiled or interpreted, is it really a [[programming language]]? Not according to that article I don't think. I don't know enough about the subject to do it, but I'm suggesting that it probably should be done. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 20:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

<span style="white-space:nowrap">—[[User:Piet Delport|Piet Delport]] <small>([[User talk:Piet Delport|talk]]) 2009-10-20 22:04</small></span>

:Just looking at them:

:: Don't be led astray by similar naming: Visual BASIC.NET has far more in common with C# than with Visual BASIC, so it would be better merged with the former than the latter. Algol60 and Algol68 are actually pretty different as well. Also the BASIC article was split from the various implementations on the basis that it was too large. It would not be a good idea to merge them all back together. -- [[User:Derek Ross|Derek Ross]] | [[User talk:Derek Ross|Talk]]'' 00:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

:* An [[Interpreter (computing)|interpreter]] is a computer program that directly executes instructions written in a programming or scripting language, without requiring them previously to have been compiled into a machine language program.

:* A [[compiler]] is a computer program that translates computer code written in one programming language (the source language) into another language (the target language)

:There is nothing stopping one from writing an interpreter and a compiler for the same language. At that point, the language is both interpreted and compiled - what is your proposal?

:Regarding assembly, the translation from mnemonics to machine code is clearly a compilation step. [[User:Mathnerd314159|Mathnerd314159]] ([[User talk:Mathnerd314159|talk]]) 15:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

::Hmmm... so would the Jaquard loom cards be an Interpreted language? [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 23:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

:::I think it's pretty arguable if they form a programming language at all. The cards are not Turing complete, AFAICT. Neither is Begriffsschrift, I think - it is just logic. So really the first entry should be Plankalkül or ENIAC code.

:::Getting past that though, whether punch cards are interpreted or compiled depends on the implementation. It is sort of like a text file today - it could be C code to be compiled or Python code to be interpreted. If there is no clear compiled object format then most likely it is interpreted. (E.g. Lua is still called interpreted even though there is the [[LuaJIT]] JIT compiler) [[User:Mathnerd314159|Mathnerd314159]] ([[User talk:Mathnerd314159|talk]]) 04:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

== Missing all Unix and Unix like lineage! ==

:: I agree, don't be led astray by names. e.g. Component Pascal is actually a superset of Oberon-2; merging Modula-2 and Modula-3, or (less so) Oberon with Oberon-2 would make as much sense as merging C with C++ etc. [[User:Chris Burrows|Chris Burrows]] ([[User talk:Chris Burrows|talk]]) 05:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I missed the Multix, Unix (several forms and version) and all derivatives like Ultrix, OSF, Tru64, Android, IOS, etc. [[Special:Contributions/167.137.1.14|167.137.1.14]] ([[User talk:167.137.1.14|talk]]) 19:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::: Right. I did not suggest merging all of these: it's just a semi-automatic list of related entries as a starting and reference point. It's as important to know why some similar-looking entries warrant separate inclusion as it is to know why some do not. (In case there was confusion, i ''definitely'' did not suggest merging any articles, just entries here.)

:This article is for programming languages. It appears you are looking for [[Timeline of operating systems]]. [[User:GubThe|GubThe]] ([[User talk:GubThe|talk]]) 15:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::: Regarding the incarnations of BASIC, i was not talking about merging the articles themselves (which is obviously a bad idea), but about removing entries from this list, which is definitely not the place for every dialect and implementation. (Interested users can find those in the [[BASIC]] article, not here.)

::: Looking through the list, the candidates with most historic significance seem to be:

:::* [[BASIC]] itself, of course ([[Dartmouth BASIC]])

:::* [[Altair BASIC]], for being Microsoft's first product, and the subject of Bill Gates' historic [[Open Letter to Hobbyists]]

::: The others can probably go, unless one of them also has clear and independent historic significance. (Any suggestions?)

== Jai programming language ==

::: Regarding VB and VB.NET, the differing implementations do not matter much; they are still essentially releases of the same language, with the same (shared) historic significance. An entry for the genesis of Visual Basic should be sufficient; interested users can find all the different implementations and releases of the language through the article.

Missing the Jai language by game developer Jonathan Blow. [[Special:Contributions/2620:83:8000:2000:0:0:1:4F0|2620:83:8000:2000:0:0:1:4F0]] ([[User talk:2620:83:8000:2000:0:0:1:4F0|talk]]) 18:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::: Thanks for the note about Component Pascal's lineage. I can't tell from the article what kind of historical significance it has, though; do you know?

::Jai appears to be in a weird situation. It redirects to Jonathan Blow's page. It is referred to on various Wikipedia pages, but often it's not allowed to be treated as if a recognized notable language. If Jai is ever publicly and officially released, likely will get a full page pretty soon afterwards, and then it can be put on multiple programming related pages.[[User:Wukuendo|Wukuendo]] ([[User talk:Wukuendo|talk]]) 07:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::: It is an extension of Oberon-02 primarily suited to the implementation of Component Frameworks - hence its name. It was one of the original seven languages selected by Microsoft for implementation on its .NET framework.[[User:Chris Burrows|Chris Burrows]] ([[User talk:Chris Burrows|talk]]) 00:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

::: The Modulas seem to be well-motivated:

:::* [[Modula-3]] for its influence in research circles and in the designs of languages like Python, Java, and C#

:::* [[Modula-2]] for its influence in Modula-3, the Oberon family, and other languages

:::* [[Modula]] for being the forerunner of the above

::: I'm also not sure how to describe the Oberon family, but they seem to continue the line of Wirthian innovation; it would be great if someone more familiar with them could give a summary of what makes each of them significant. (Thanks for the response so far!) <span style="white-space:nowrap">—[[User:Piet Delport|Piet Delport]] <small>([[User talk:Piet Delport|talk]]) 2009-10-23 15:45</small></span>

== Ada Lovelace ==

:::: Within a couple of years of the appearance of Oberon the additional O-O concepts researched in Object Oberon were added to it to form Oberon-2. It is suitable for general-purpose systems and application development. Oberon-07 also evolved directly from Oberon via Oberon-SA (StrongARM) with features that make it particularly suited to the development of reliable software on resource-limited systems e.g. real-time embedded control systems using microcontrollers.[[User:Chris Burrows|Chris Burrows]] ([[User talk:Chris Burrows|talk]]) 00:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No one would think Elizabeth Queen of United Kingdom (and Commonwealth) should be known instead as: Elizabeth U.K. ''etc''. [[Queen Elizabeth]] - simply E. is the first name II is the second name - [[Elizabeth II]] - there isn't any second name shown and routing back through kings / King(s) no surname / second name - so in the case of the Queen the fact of the role of monarch as identifier is observable - but "Ada King" is know - is not suppressed devalued / non-relevant - in the case of a Queen the role is the identity of the individual i.e. either "of United Kingom", or, "II" - in the case of a Countess if her role as an aristocrat was expressed through her work with Babbage could add value to the necessity of fusion of the title as the name - orlando.cambridge.org/people/4e5223ec-e79e-4d0b-b900-251046f3a2b6: "Anne Isabella Baroness Noel Byron" although "Standard Name: Noel Byron". [[User:Onemillionthtree|(𒌋*𓆏)𓆭]] 13:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks for the clarification. That seems reasonable. -- [[User:Derek Ross|Derek Ross]] | [[User talk:Derek Ross|Talk]]'' 15:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)