Revision as of 23:15, 9 September 2024 edit Herostratus (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 54,112 edits →Should we separate compiled/interpreted languages from the other early ones?: hmmm ← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:29, 11 September 2024 edit undo Mathnerd314159 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 3,251 edits →Should we separate compiled/interpreted languages from the other early ones?: Reply Tag: Reply Next edit →
Line 174: :Regarding assembly, the translation from mnemonics to machine code is clearly a compilation step. [[User:Mathnerd314159\|Mathnerd314159]] ([[User talk:Mathnerd314159\|talk]]) 15:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC) ::Hmmm... so would the Jaquard loom cards be an Interpreted language? [[User:Herostratus\|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus\|talk]]) 23:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC) :::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)

Talk:Timeline of programming languages: Difference between revisions