Talk:Timeline of programming languages: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:57, 6 November 2022

Latest revision as of 13:42, 10 June 2025

(20 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)

Line 1:

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

{{WikiProject Computing|importance=Mid}}

}}

{{archives}}

Line 136 ⟶ 138:

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

* 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-->

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-->

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-->

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

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.

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.

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)

:{{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)

== Shakespeare ==

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)

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

I'm talking about the earliest entries.

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.

(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)

:Just looking at them:

:* 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 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)

: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)

== Jai programming language ==

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)

::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)

== Ada Lovelace ==

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)