Content deleted Content added
reply →Language Versions: , new section on changing inclusion criteria |
|||
Line 106:
"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)
: 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.
: 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).
: [[User:Bsdrevise|Bsdrevise]] ([[User talk:Bsdrevise|talk]]) 13:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
| |||