Content deleted Content added
m Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Programming languages (43 articles) |
→"Safe modular programming": new section |
||
Line 66:
: It's a [[hyphen-minus]], to give it its Unicode name. It is the one and only ASCII character to be a horizontal line at x-height in the character cell. It is the dash in ASCII, among its multitude of duties.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|talk]]) 04:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
== "Safe modular programming" ==
The first sentence of the "History" section ends with a rather vague (IMO) reference to "safe modular programming". This phrase doubtless means something definite to someone somewhere, but I find it unclear—and I have a degree in computer science, so I imagine the two adjectives in front of "programming" convey virtually no useful information to a casual reader.
A [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22safe+modular+programming%22 Google search] for the three-word phrase in question, in quotes, turns up 1,660 results, and it seems like they're mostly direct quotes of this article, which strikes me as problematic. I can guess pretty well what "modular programming" means (I mean, there's [[Modular programming|an article]] about it, and of course I know what modularity is, so that's a reasonable term to use), but "safe" is a bit of a weasel word. Without a link to an article describing a specific kind of safety (like how "safe" links to the article on type safety in the infobox), it's hard to know which, or how many, of the meanings of the word are intended. Was the problem that some of the languages then in use supported modular programming, and some supported safe (whatever that means) programming, but none supported safe, modular programming? Or were all languages both unsafe and non-modular? Or something else entirely?
All of that to say: it would be great if someone who knows more about the history of programming languages than I could clarify what "safe" means in this context.
I'm probably making too much of a fuss about a single word, but it strikes me as a deficiency in the article, so I think it should either be fixed somehow or someone should explain why it's not actually a problem.
[[User:GreenWeasel11|GreenWeasel11]] ([[User talk:GreenWeasel11|talk]]) 08:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
| |||