Revision as of 04:29, 11 September 2024 edit Mathnerd314159 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 3,251 edits →Should we separate compiled/interpreted languages from the other early ones?: Reply Tag: Reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:10, 18 March 2025 edit undo 167.137.1.14 (talk) →Missing all Unix and Unix like lineage!: new section Tag: New topic Next edit →
Line 176: :::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)

Talk:Timeline of programming languages: Difference between revisions