Content deleted Content added
Stevebroshar (talk | contribs) →Rename: Reply |
Stevebroshar (talk | contribs) →Rename: Reply |
||
Line 520:
:*The impetus for designing the language was writing scripts, e.g., [[Perl]]
:This is a case where usage isn't well correlated to the syntax and semantics of the language, but depends largely on its history. Should Wikepedia be imposing a more logical nomenclature, or sticking to the actual usage in the literature? Wouldn't the former be [[WP:OR|OR]]? -- [[User:Chatul|Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul]] ([[User talk:Chatul|talk]]) 12:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Chatul|Chatul]] What's the problem? You list two items that are both about scripts. What is the distinction you are trying to highlight? Bourne shell was designed to write shell scripts. Perl was designed to write Perl scripts. I think there is a complexity difference between Bourne shell and Perl, but how is that relevant to whether they both are designed and used for writing scripts? ... A scripting language is a language which a script can be written in, right? ... I'm not familiar with [[CLIST]] but the article does not contain the text "script" ... not familiar with [[Rexx]] but it seems to be a scripting language used for writing scripts. [[User:Stevebroshar|Stevebroshar]] ([[User talk:Stevebroshar|talk]]) 13:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
== Notable environments? ==
| |||