|
}}<!-- 13:49 June 30, 2019 (UTC), Sam Sailor added [[Template:Oca]] -->
<!-- Update the bot settings if you move the page, see WP:POSTMOVE. -->
== Suggested outline (2022-06-28) ==
Overall, the current article is well cited and has some good material, but its organization is a bit of a mess. It consists of a hodge podge of vaguely related topics, and the delineation between sections is unclear. Additionally, the article doesn't seem focused around "computer program" as a central theme. It contains several subsections now which elaborate on things of unclear relevance to computer programs -- for example the BNF discussion under "Syntax and semantics" uses linguistics as an example and is only tangentially relevant to what a "computer program" is. Recent edits have moved some things around and added material, and these have mostly been improvements I think, but there's still a ways to go.
Here is a draft suggested outline that I think would make sense. What do you think?
1. History (the earliest computer programs and overview of how the notion of a program has evolved)
2. Modern computer programs (survey of what a computer program means today)
: This is a current major omission from the article. What I have in mind is illustrating through examples what today's computer programs are and look like. This section could incorporate much of the material currently under Imperative Languages and Declarative Languages as example programs.
: The "hello world" section might also fit here. It's currently out of place but could instead be "examples" or something.
: It would be great for this section to also include some empirical survey information such as: who writes programs today, what language(s) are they typically written in, etc.
3. Program elements
: 3.1 Syntax and Semantics
: This is currently under "programming langauges and paradigms" but it doesn't quite fit there. It's more fundamental to what a program is.
: 3.2 ???
4. Programming languages and paradigms
5. Program development
(current section titled software engineering & computer programming)
6. Classification of computer programs
: 4.1 By language
: 4.2 By platform (OS, architecture)
: 4.3 By use case (e.g., embedded systems programs, mobile phone apps, web apps, etc.)
: 4.4 By functional category
7. In popular culture
(another section missing right now, could be nice to have)
[[User:Caleb Stanford|Caleb Stanford]] ([[User talk:Caleb Stanford|talk]]) 18:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
:The current structure is just fine. [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 19:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
::I generally agree with Caleb Stanford's assessment. <small>(Do you prefer Caleb, Mr. Stanford, something else?)</small> This article should be mostly accessible to people with no programming experience, with occasional detail (perhaps in footnotes) to make it enjoyable for more-experienced folks. Your proposed scope and organization of the article makes sense and is highly navigable. There is just too much inappropriate content in the article at the moment, the most unfortunate being the sprawling C++ code and Makefile. Short snippets of code illustrating different levels of languages is best. <s>I also agree with the emphasis on modern programming; as important as ALGOL, BASIC, etc., are, they are unrepresentative of what programmers do today, which again is very important for the layman.</s> [[User:Ovinus|Ovinus]] ([[User talk:Ovinus|talk]]) 19:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
:::This article spends too much time covering things it shouldn't, I can agree on that much. In particular we devote way too much space to object oriented programming and technical details of C and C++ which should just be a brief summary and pointer to their own articles. I disagree that a modern definition of a computer program is much different from a historical one. We have other articles (lots of them! [[Software development]], [[Computer programming]], [[Software engineering]]) that can cover the process of programming or what specific tools and language variants are used today. This article should be general in scope - the parent of many child articles, in keeping with [[Wikipedia:Summary style]]. Sections on particular platforms and use cases don't really belong here. Also, no popular culture section. This article will not be helped by a collection of cruft and trivia. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 20:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
::::Good point about separate articles, thanks! [[User:Ovinus|Ovinus]] ([[User talk:Ovinus|talk]]) 21:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::Thanks, you both put it better than I did. <small>("Caleb" is fine!)</small> Re: modern definition, my point is that the modern notion of a program is very different from, say, Ada Lovelace's note G or the universal Turing machine currently surveyed under History. Explaining what a program is today and what it was historically are two very different things. About classification, I think it would be nice to overview some answers to the question: what are some of the ways that programs can be categorized? Those subsections are just some ideas. [[User:Caleb Stanford|Caleb Stanford]] ([[User talk:Caleb Stanford|talk]]) 22:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
<br>
:::* The key sentence is, "Once the mechanics of basic computer programming are learned, more sophisticated and powerful languages are available to build large computer systems." [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 22:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
:::* The most profound passage is, "Object-oriented programming developed by combining the need for containers and the need for safe functional programming. This programming method need not be confined to an object-oriented language." [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 10:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
:::* The most difficult objective to achieve is, "To be effective, program modules need to be defined and distributed to team members. Also, team members must interact with one another in a meaningful and effective way." [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 10:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
:::* The most insightful sentence is, "C allows the programmer to control which region of memory data is to be stored." [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 11:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
:::* The "hodge podge" includes the sentence, "Software engineering is a variety of techniques to produce quality software." [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 01:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
:::* The "modern notion of a program is very different from, say, Ada Lovelace's note G" because "[a]t each stage in hardware's history, the task of computer programming changed dramatically." [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 09:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
:::* The "hello world" program in Basic at the beginning is is not "currently out of place" because "if a student didn't go on to a more powerful language, the student would still remember Basic." [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 10:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
:::* The "most unfortunate [inappropriate content is] the sprawling C++ code" which illustrates how "[i]n the 1970s, software engineers needed language support to break large projects down into modules. One obvious feature was to decompose large projects physically into separate files. A less obvious feature was to decompose large projects logically into abstract datatypes." [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 12:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
:::*:{{ping|Timhowardriley}} With kindness, can you please stop editing the talk page of this article with non-constructive edits? I understand you disagree with the assessment of the article, but it doesn't help to repeatedly edit the talk page in this way. I also apologize if you took offense to the tone of my comments or felt that any of them are not actionable. My intention was to propose, in my view, how the article can be improved. Thanks, [[User:Caleb Stanford|Caleb Stanford]] ([[User talk:Caleb Stanford|talk]]) 04:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
:::*::So far, this thread has successfully dissuaded any editor from trying to implement any of these substandard suggestions. [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 11:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
:::*::Follow up: an example of a quality suggestion would be, "Dr. Alpha from Bravo University wrote a computer textbook that has a chapter titled 'Program development'. In this chapter, software engineering and computer programming are discussed." [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 12:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
:::*:::Tim, your posts have not successfully dissuaded any editor; nor do they attempt to substantively address any points that were raised. Your edits here are [[WP:DISRUPTIVE]]. They are non-constructive and do not engage with the criticism. Please do not continue this behavior.
:::*:::If you have any suggestions for how to improve the article in a different way, that is appropriate for the talk page. If you think the article is perfect as is, then simply let the page be. [[User:Caleb Stanford|Caleb Stanford]] ([[User talk:Caleb Stanford|talk]]) 16:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
:::* Regarding {{tq|About classification, I think it would be nice to overview some answers to the question: what are some of the ways that programs can be categorized?}}: The article currently describes a handful of program categories. They are: knobs and switches, first generation, second generation, third generation, fourth generation, imperative languages, declarative languages, functional languages, logical languages, object-oriented programs, application software, system software, utility programs, and microcode programs. What is your vision for an overview? [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 17:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
== Moved "program execution" template and top image to talk. ==
I'm moving the newly added "program execution" and the top image to this talk section.
{{Program execution}}
[[File:Concepts- Program vs. Process vs. Thread.jpg|thumb|'''Program''' vs. [[Process (computing)|Process]] vs. [[Thread (computing)|Thread]] <br/>[[Scheduling (computing)|Scheduling]], [[Preemption (computing)|Preemption]], [[Context switch|Context Switching]]|400x400px]]
The "program execution" template is too large and negatively affects the article's format. The top image has interesting information, but too much of it. Also, the image should be split in two. There are two concepts present, and the joining of them is unclear. [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 07:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] The distinction between "Program", "Process" and "Thread" and the steps that a line of "instruction code of program" is delivered to a CPU for processing is important. So in my opinion the image can be restored. That is, the image says "What happens that a CPU processes a program?". Thanks, [[User:Hooman Mallahzadeh|Hooman Mallahzadeh]] ([[User talk:Hooman Mallahzadeh|talk]]) 11:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Computer_program&diff=prev&oldid=1159467815 This edit] to move the image to the OS section was a good idea. [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 22:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
== Prolog rewrite ==
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Computer_program&diff=prev&oldid=1170324682 This edit] changed the ''Prolog'' section from material I could understand to material I cannot understand. This article is general purpose. It should explain computer programs at the most elementary level possible. The prior Prolog material was elementary. The current material is complicated. Was the prior material incorrect? [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 20:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
:Yes, unfortunately, the previous program was not correct. See the talk page for [[declarative programming]]. For example, the clauses <code>cat(tom).</code> <code>animal(cat).</code>are not correct Prolog. [[User:Robert Kowalski|Robert Kowalski]] ([[User talk:Robert Kowalski|talk]]) 21:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
== Correct results for Prolog numeric grade example ==
The displayed results for Prolog's numeric grade example is not what the user would expect. The article says the results will display: X = 'A'. The expected results should display: X = 4. [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 19:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
:The example in its current form has two relations, which can be queried in isolation, or which can be queried in combination (like a join in a relational database). For example:
<syntaxhighlight lang="prolog">
numeric_grade('A', 4).
numeric_grade('B', 3).
numeric_grade('C', 2).
numeric_grade('D', 1).
numeric_grade('F', 0).
numeric_grade(X, -1) :- not X = 'A', not X = 'B', not X = 'C', not X = 'D', not X = 'F'.
grade('The Student', 'A').
?- grade('The Student', X), numeric_grade(X, Y).
X = 'A',
Y = 4
</syntaxhighlight>
:Alternatively, the query could be used to define a new relation, which gives the grade of a student as a number:
<syntaxhighlight lang="prolog">
numeric_grade('A', 4).
numeric_grade('B', 3).
numeric_grade('C', 2).
numeric_grade('D', 1).
numeric_grade('F', 0).
numeric_grade(X, -1) :- not X = 'A', not X = 'B', not X = 'C', not X = 'D', not X = 'F'.
grade_as_number(Student, Number) :-
grade(Student, Letter), numeric_grade(Letter, Number).
grade('The Student', 'A').
?- grade_as_number('The Student', Number).
Number = 4
</syntaxhighlight> [[User:Robert Kowalski|Robert Kowalski]] ([[User talk:Robert Kowalski|talk]]) 08:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Followup: It would be nice to learn Prolog's syntax for forming functions. Could this example be converted to a function? If so, then how would the the driver program execute it? [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 20:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
: Here is the example in [[Ciao (programming language) | Ciao]] Prolog's functional syntax:
<syntaxhighlight lang="prolog">
numeric_grade('A') := 4.
numeric_grade('B') := 3.
numeric_grade('C') := 2.
numeric_grade('D') := 1.
numeric_grade('F') := 0.
numeric_grade(X) := -1 :- X \= 'A', X \= 'B', X \= 'C', X \= 'D', X \= 'F'.
grade_as_number(Student) := numeric_grade(grade(Student)).
grade('The Student') := 'A'.
grade(bob) := good.
?- ~grade_as_number(Student) = Number.
Number = 4,
Student = 'The Student' ;
Number = -1,
Student = bob
</syntaxhighlight>
:Just for fun, the query asks for all input-output pairs that satisfy the functional relationship "grade_as_number". Good for debugging.
:Ciao executes the functional program by transforming it into the relational representation, with the value of the function as the last argument of the relation.
== Prolog example use of word "clause" ==
:*:Please do not be offended ... but that old version is better. It's not perfect, but is much more focused and reads better.
:*:I see that you added a lot of content that is clearly well-researched and I applaud your effort. [[User:Stevebroshar|Stevebroshar]] ([[User talk:Stevebroshar|talk]]) 21:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
== Thanks ==
Dear @[[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] I tried working with you, but you have no interest in that. You are close-minded, and disagreeable. Not a team player. You shot down all the concerns and suggestions I made, horked up the comments I made above and now reverted my careful, well considered and IMO valuable edits. You are a hack and a bully. This article is terrible, yet you seem to think it's your pet and cannot live without one precious word of it. Thanks very little. [[User:Stevebroshar|Stevebroshar]] ([[User talk:Stevebroshar|talk]]) 16:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
:Please [[Wikipedia:Civility|be polite]]. [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 18:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
== Is Prolog section too detailed? ==
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Computer_program&diff=prev&oldid=1231846322 This] edit has merit. I reverted it because such a big change should first be talked about. The edit trimmed Prolog's second and third examples. These examples were added by [[Robert Kowalski]] himself. Given his stature as a pioneer of the language, it's an honor to collaborate with him. Nonetheless, the first example alone gives the reader enough information to decide whether or not to dig deeper. [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 02:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
== Merge with [[Software]] ==
According to the descriptions of [[software]] and a [[computer program]], they seem to be almost exactly the same thing, if there is any distinction at all. Having two article therefore seems superfluous, and I suggest that we merge them into one. —[[User:Kri|Kri]] ([[User talk:Kri|talk]]) 15:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
:'''Agree'''. Software and computer program are the same thing. Software is just a a better sounding word. A source says software also includes documentation and other things. But I don't agree. That's just forcing a distinction. Those other things are categories of their own. [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 17:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
:How would you propose handling [[firmware]]? [[User:RastaKins|RastaKins]] ([[User talk:RastaKins|talk]]) 19:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
::Please explain. [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 22:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Software, such as a [[Library (computing)|library]] can be a subset of a computer program. Computer program is a specific software topic. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 14:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
*:# I don't see library as a subset of computer program. Also, the software article doesn't say this. The library article says, "Commonly, a library consists of executable code such as compiled functions and classes, or a library can be a collection of source code." What am I missing?
*:# Regarding "Computer program is a specific software topic.": Are you saying software is a general topic of which computer program is a special case? Again, the software article doesn't say this.
*:# What information is there in the software article that differentiates it from computer program? Design documents and specifications? Um. A colleague has never said to me, "Please hand me your documents software." Or "Please hand me your specification software." If I were to receive a request to hand over my software, then I would deliver computer programs.
*:[[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 19:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
*::4. I could "sed s/software/computer program/g" in the software article and the information would stay the same. Likewise, I could "sed s/computer program/software/g" in the computer program article and the information would stay the same. [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 23:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
::/1 what you're missing is you can't run a library. You have to [[Linker (computing)|link]] it in as part of a program.
::/2 yes, per my library example. [[Object file]] and [[object file]] are other examples of software that is not necessarily a computer program. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 15:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes, object files and other libraries are ready to be linked. Whereas they are not source code, they are computer programs. [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 16:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Followup: In "Comparative Programming Languages, Third Edition", the authors write, {{tq|"A computer is a tool that solves problems by means of programs (or software) written in a programming language."}} In the Implementation section is written, {{tq|"Execution of a program written in an imperative language, such as Pascal, Ada, or C++, normally takes place by translating (compiling) the source program into an equivalent machine code program. This machine code is then executed."}} In the Separate Compilation section is written, {{tq|"Packages ... can be compiled separately..."}} In "C How to Program, Second Edition", the author writes, {{tq|"The compiler translates the C program into machine language code (also referred to as object code)."}} Later it says, {{tq|"The fourth phase is called linking. C programs typically contain references to functions defined elsewhere such as in the standard libaries or in the libraries of a group of programmers working on a particular project."}} It also says, {{tq|"A linker links the object code with the code for the missing functions to produce an executable."}} Therefore, computer programs (also called software) are written in a programming language that gets translated to another computer program called machine language. Large computer programs may be separated into object code files for convenience. The entire library is then compiled to an executable computer program. Software (also called computer programs) can exist at different levels. At each level, it's still called software -- it's still called computer programs. [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 21:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
::::You're really straining to interpret this source to say what you want it to say. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 15:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
: {{strike|'''merge'''}} Software is a type of thing, a bit like metal is a type of substance. A computer program is a bundle of software and other resources needed to perform some task on a computer. So, a computer program contains software, but can also contain other things, like graphics or data for the task. They are not quite the same thing, but it is reasonable to have one WP article that covers both topics as long as the distinction is covered in the article. The merged article will still need some work as both articles include some misconceptions. — [[User:GhostInTheMachine|GhostInTheMachine]] <sup>[[User talk:GhostInTheMachine|talk to me]]</sup> 07:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
::# Regarding "metal is a type of substance": I agree. Dictionary.com says, "[metal is] any of a class of elementary substances ... which are characterized by [additional attributes]". The set of metals is a subset of the set of substances. Therefore, metals have all the properties of substances, plus additional properties that other substances don't have.
::# Regarding "a computer program contains software, but can also contain other things, like graphics or data for the task.": I disagree. The set of computer programs is not a subset of the set of software. Computer programs do have all the properties of software -- they are the instructions for the CPU. However, they don't have additional attributes. Therefore, the set of computer programs equals the set of software. Likewise, the set of software equals the set of computer programs.
::# On the other hand, graphic files are bytes stored in files. They probably don't have any instructions for the CPU. Likewise, data for the task are bytes stored in files.
::# Both graphics files and data for the task may contain embedded, auxiliary instructions for the CPU. Therefore, those isolated blocks are computer programs/software. But not the whole file. I would be confusing my reader if I were to write, "Attached is your graphics file computer program." Instead, I would write, "Attached is your graphics file which loads into the computer program."
::[[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 13:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
::: Oh dear. Having written a fair bit of the stuff, I do know that a '''computer program''' may contain non-software components. Casual use may equate the terms, in much the same way that WWW and Internet are often treated as synonyms, but at a technical level they are not the same thing — [[User:GhostInTheMachine|GhostInTheMachine]] <sup>[[User talk:GhostInTheMachine|talk to me]]</sup> 15:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
::::You didn't refute my claims that graphics files and data for the tasks are not computer programs. Yes, WWW and Internet are synonyms. Regarding {{tq|"I do know that a '''computer program''' may contain non-software components."}}: Please be technical. [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 16:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Additional thought: The Internet is a web of networks scattered throughout the wide world. [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 16:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
:In summary, at this point, you have my contention that software is a subset of a computer program because a library is software but not a computer program and we have [[User:GhostInTheMachine|GhostInTheMachine]]'s contention that a computer program is a superset of software because it can contain images and other ancillary data needed to perform its function. We haven't heard anything more from other participants {{u|Kri}} or {{u|RastaKins}}. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 15:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
::In "C How to Program, Second Edition", the author writes, {{tq|C programs typically contain references to functions defined elsewhere such as in the standard library or in the libraries of a group of programmers working on a particular project."}} It also says, {{tq|"A linker links the object code with the code for the missing functions to produce an executable."}} These two sentences indicate the author believes that libraries and computer programs are the same thing. Please:
::# Disagree with my indication and explain why.
::# Quote a sentence or two from a reliable source that indicate a library of functions isn't a computer program.
::Also, GhostinTheMachine has not refuted my claims that graphics files and data for the task are not computer programs. Also, I challenged GhostinTheMachine to be technical regarding the {{tq|I do know that a '''computer program''' may contain non-software components}} claim. No technical explanation was provided. [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 16:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
::The [[software]] article will probably survive because [[Wikipedia:Be_Afraid|many editors have contributed to it]], and that's okay. However, I'm not going to let a [[semantic argument]] insult my intelligence. [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 17:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
:::The new quotes do not clearly support your position IMO - the word ''software'' does not appear in them. We need a [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus of editors]] to proceed with the merge. That does not mean you need to get my agreement to proceed but we do need to hear from other editors who see it the way you do and that has not happened. ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 14:57, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
* '''oppose''' — revisited both articles, so reversing my comment. Both articles need some work, so any attempt to merge them will probably prove troublesome and most likely impossible — [[User:GhostInTheMachine|GhostInTheMachine]] <sup>[[User talk:GhostInTheMachine|talk to me]]</sup> 16:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
== AmE vs BrE ==
The British traditional spelling of "program" is "programme". This is the only exception, computer program. The rest are programme in British English. Program is the British spelling in sense of computer programming. [[User:Dotsenter21|Dotsenter21]] ([[User talk:Dotsenter21|talk]]) 01:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
:Somewhere, I remember reading that Wikipedia doesn't care which English spelling is used, as long as the entire article is consistent. Also, the first major edit of the article should start the consistency. [[User:Timhowardriley|Timhowardriley]] ([[User talk:Timhowardriley|talk]]) 06:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
| 