Talk:Programming language: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:28, 2 March 2025

Revision as of 19:06, 2 March 2025

Line 357:

'''Programming Languages Are Compiled'''- many people will use compilation as a standard for whether or not something is a "real" programming language, usually arguing that an interpreter makes it a "scripting" language. This definition does not to do a good job describing virtual-machine based language implementations

'''Programming Languages Must be Turing Complete''' - the reason people think this is obvious, but an important misconception is that this test is meant more generally for instruction/mathematical operation sets, and predatesis just able to be applied to programming languages byas a long timeresult. Like much of Turing's work, it was just so solid that we can continue to use it for things he never even got to see, and programming languages inherently overlap with instructional sets by design - but at the end of the day Turing Completeness just means being able to accomplish the same things as a certain class of machine he made up (not to diminish the concept, it's a really important machine that does a lot).

'''Programming Languages must be imperative/have logic/control structures''' - this perception often arises due to the popularity and power of imperative programming languages - however as the name suggests (and this article even mentions several times), that's formally a *subset* of programming languages. Declarative programming often "feels" less like programming because it is not as concerned with how the task is going to be accomplished, but the original distinction of instructing a machine with language was not concerned with that sort of distinction.