Wikipedia

Comparison of programming languages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by -Barry- (talk | contribs) at 01:34, 5 May 2006 (Changed "search engine hits" to "web popularity" and rewrote footnotes. "Search engine hits" sounded like the number of results.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The following table compares general and technical information for popular programming languages. See the individual products' articles for further information.

Language General model of execution Influences Principal paradigm Typing discipline Introduced Web populartity[1] Popularity change (1 yr)[2]


Ada Compilation Algol, Pascal, C++ (Ada 95), Smalltalk (Ada 95) multi-paradigm: concurrent, distributed, generic-programming, imperative, object-oriented static, strong, safe, nominative 1983 18 0
C Compilation Algol, B imperative, flow-driven static, weak 1973 2 -1
C++ Compilation C, Simula, Algol 68 multi-paradigm: imperative, object-oriented, generic static, weak 1980 3 +1
C# Compilation Java, C++ object-oriented dynamic, strong, both safe and unsafe, nominative 2000 7 0
COBOL Compilation ? ? ? 1959 15 -1
ColdFusion Compilation ? ? ? 1995 16 +9
Common Lisp Compilation Lisp, Smalltalk multi-paradigm: functional, object-oriented dynamic 1984 14 +1
D Compilation C++ multi-paradigm: imperative, object-oriented, generic ? 2000 19 +8
Delphi Compilation Pascal, Object Pascal multi-paradigm: imperative, object-oriented static, strong 1995 10 -1
Java Interpretation/JIT compilation/Dynamic compilation C++, Objective-C object-oriented static, strong 1996 1 +1
JavaScript Interpretation C, LiveScript multi-paradigm: imperative, object-oriented, functional dynamic 1995 9 +2
Mathematica Interpretation Lisp Multiple paradigms dynamic, strong 1986 >50 ?
Objective-C Compilation/JIT compilation C, Smalltalk object-oriented dynamic, strong 1986 49 ?
Perl Interpretation C, shell, awk, sed, Lisp multi-paradigm: imperative, object-oriented dynamic 1987 6 -3
PHP Interpretation Perl, C multi-paradigm: imperative, object-oriented dynamic, strong 1995 4 +1
Python Interpretation ABC, Perl multi-paradigm: imperative, object-oriented, functional dynamic (duck), strong 1991 8 0
Ruby Interpretation Smalltalk, Perl multi-paradigm: imperative, object-oriented, functional, concurrent dynamic (duck), strong 1995 20 +10
Scheme Interpretation Lisp, Algol 60 functional dynamic 1975 14 +1
Smalltalk JIT compilation Sketchpad, Simula object-oriented dynamic 1971 35 ?
Visual Basic Compilation QuickBASIC event-driven static, strong 1991 5 +1
Visual Basic .NET JIT compilation Visual Basic object-oriented, event-driven static, strong 2001 17 +11
  1. ^ From the first column of the May, 2006 TIOBE Programming Community Index. Languages are ranked sequentially from most to fewest search engine results using the method described on TIOBE's Definition page:
    The ratings are calculated by counting hits of the most popular search engines. The search query that is used is
    +"<language> programming" -tv -channel
    The search query is executed for the regular Google, MSN, and Yahoo! web search and the Google newsgroups for the last 12 months. The web site Alexa.com has been used to determine the most popular search engines. The word "tv" and "channel" have been filtered out here to avoid any interference with TV programs. Otherwise languages such as ABC and Scheme would have been highly overrated.
    By applying the search engine query as defined above, a lot of hit counts are collected. Let's define "hits(PL#i,SE)" as the number of hits of programming language PL at position i of the TPC index for search engine SE. The counted hits are normalized for each search engine for the first 50 languages. More formally, the rating for PL#i becomes
    ((hits(PL#i,SE1)/hits(PL#1) + ... + hits(PL#50)) + ... + (hits(PL#i,SEn)/hits(PL#1) + ... + hits(PL#50)))/n
    In determining web popularity of a language, the language may include or exclude certain dialects or other languages. See what's included or excluded in the Exceptions and inclusions chart below.
  2. ^ From the Delta in Position column of the May, 2006 TIOBE Programming Community Index. This number indicates the language's change in web popularity (see above footnote) over the last year. In determining the popularity change for a language, the language may include or exclude certain dialects or other languages. See what's included or excluded in the Exceptions and inclusions chart below.
Exceptions and inclusions
Exceptions and inclusions used in determining popularity and usage trend
Language Exceptions/Inclusions
Awk Included: awk, gawk, mawk, nawk
C# Included: C#, C-Sharp, C Sharp
ColdFusion Included: ColdFusion, Cold Fusion, CFMX, CFML
D Exception: "3-D Programming"
Delphi/Kylix Included: Delphi, Kylix
IDL Exception: "corba"
Lisp/Scheme Included: Lisp, Scheme
Python Included: Python, Jython, IronPython (Jan Persson)
T-SQL Included: T-SQL, Transact-SQL
Tcl/Tk Included: Tcl/Tk, Tcl, Tk
VB.NET Included: VB.NET, Visual Basic.NET, Visual Basic .NET, Visual Basic 2005, VB 2005
Visual FoxPro Included: FoxPro, Fox Pro, VFP
Stub icon

This programming-language-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_programming_languages&oldid=51613949"