Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Programming languages: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:41, 9 May 2004

Revision as of 23:38, 11 May 2004

Line 60:

----

The words "Programming Language" are capitalized in the title [[Cg Programming Language]], but in no other programming language articles. Why's this? [[User:Grendelkhan|Grendelkhan]] 16:41, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

== Writing about programming languages (from the village pump) ==

I think that there's something fundamentally wrong with the way that we write about programming languages. Most articles on programming languages discuss the most popular compiler/interpreter for the language, but the language is a seperate topic to the language.

For example, [[C Sharp programming language]] talks about how "C# does not compile to binary code which can be executed directly by the target computer", but that's just how some implementations of the language work. It has nothing to do with the language itself. It would be possible to make implement a C# compiler that compiles to binary code. The article is about the language, not compilers.

[[Java programming language]] says that Java code can be compiled once and then run anywhere. But this is talking about Sun and IBM's Java compilers. It isn't true for gjc, for example, which compiles to native code.

[[QBasic programming language]] says "Microsoft stopped shipping QBasic with later versions of Windows". How does Microsoft ship a programming language (as the article is clearly about from the title), an abstract concept? Whoever wrote this is talking about a single implementation of the language.

What can we do about this?

[[User:Cgs|CGS]] 23:58, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

:Bah, I just wrote a great long response to this, and then my browser crashed! It boiled down to:

* C# is a Microsoft language, so Microsoft's implementation deserves most attention - just mention that other implementations are feasible that break this rule.

* similarly, Java was designed with portable execution in mind, so it makes sense to discuss this mode of operation before any of the others - which can be seen as extensions to the original concept

* as for [[QBasic]], the article has the wrong name, is all - there is no "QBasic programming language", it is an interpretter for the same dialect of [[BASIC programming language|BASIC]] as [[Microsoft QuickBASIC compiler|QuickBASIC]] (which could also compile it), which in turn is one of hundreds of mutually incompatible BASIC dialects that have sprung up over the years, but can't really be considered languages in their own right.

** I suggest moving it (what's with this "''foo programming language''" convention anyway? Isn't it breaking a wider convention on obvious naming, except where necessary for disambiguation? What else is ever going to live at [[Smalltalk]] other than the content of [[Smalltalk programming language]]?)

** It (QBasic) should be removed from [[MediaWiki:List of programming languages]], too: you wouldn't put [[gcc]] in there, after all.

:So, essentially, the necessary changes are kind of more minor than you make out, although I see your point about the mindset and whatever. Humph, now this is almost as long as my first version - this time I'd better not crash my browser while previewing it, cos I need to get to bed. [[WP:BBIEP|Happy editing!]] - [[User:IMSoP|IMSoP]] 00:57, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

:I agree with CGS's observations, but also agree with IMSoP that priority should be given to the design intentions and popular implementations of a language. Some of it could be resolved by more precise language in the articles; instead of "C# does not compile to binary code...", use "Microsoft's C# compiler does not generate machine-level object code..." or something similar. Anyhow, it definitely needs some attention. I'll try to pitch in. -- [[User:Wapcaplet|Wapcaplet]] 04:27, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

::Maybe a visit to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Programming Languages]] would be in order? --[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 08:24, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

----