Content deleted Content added
Guy Harris (talk | contribs) →List of "modular programming" languages: Indent a comment, in the hopes of making it clearer that it was inserted in the *middle* of the comment to which it was replying. |
→V (Vlang): Reply |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 112:
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 164 ⟶ 166:
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)
| |||