Talk:Computer language

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 14 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Wintersfire.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

The title of the SQL standard (ISO/IEC 9075: 2003) is "Information technology -- Database languages -- SQL -- Part n ...", for 0 < n < 14.

There were once two standard database languages: SQL and NDL (ISO 8907, Network Database Language). The first edition of each was published in 1987, following publication of identical ANSI standards, and the former continued to be developed until the present. ISO 8907 was based on the Codasyl DBTG work and was eventually withdrawn in 1996, for lack of support.

Whether it would be worth giving it a page of its own is doubtful, but perhaps it deserves at least a mention.

I would expect an entry on database languages to define a dbl as something like:

  A language capable of defining, updating and querying a database.

--MikeSy 17:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

It has basically duplicated paragraphs (e.g. on machine languages), is scattered with "Last modified" and other such tags, and was obviously cut and pasted from elsewhere with little editing. Furthermore, it isn't particularly comprehensive or well written. --Wizofaus 23:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I simply reverted it. --ZeroOne 01:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

A communication protocol is not a computer language. It may involve a language (e.g. XML) but it is not in itself a language. It describes the methods of communication between devices, not a syntax for programming, querying, or markup. --Sean 05:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

The concept discussed on this article seems very useful to me, but I can't find references for it and thus can't verify it's not made up. The dictionaries, encyclopedias, and university course web pages I could find all used it as a synonym for programming language, machine language, or computer jargon. --TuukkaH 22:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

If this is the case, maybe we should just change this to be a re-direct to "Programming languages". Anca 22:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Let me give my personal take on the topic. Programming languages are languages that are used for programming: specifying algorithms and data structures and their abstractions. This rules out a lot of other formal languages used in computer communication. Thus, every page that discusses programming languages and includes HTML, for example, is actually discussing the topic of this article. You can't write computer programs in HTML, you can't program in HTML. Here're a few links to get us started:

• Perl, the first postmodern computer language - mentions "C, sh, csh, grep, sed, awk, Fortran, COBOL, PL/I, BASIC-PLUS, SNOBOL, Lisp, Ada, C++, and Python". Notice grep.
• The Language List - "Collected Information On About 2500 Computer Languages, Past and Present." Lists also categories of computer languages such as query, specification, meta. Includes HTML.

Here we have Category:Computer languages too. --TuukkaH 09:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

What language is it? What does the code do? 165.230.132.122 18:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Should this page be merged with Programming Language? Heavy Metal Cellist^talk_contribs

Agree that this is a candidate for merge. In the meantime, edited for clarity, tone and content. This article should stay as *small* as possible, deferring to 'the other types of languages' to do all the defining, characterizing and comparisons. If not merged, this article should do little more than disambiguate, and definitely it should not introduce any independent assertions. dr.ef.tymac 01:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

It would be helpful to have more users participating in this discussion. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I made some relatively major changes considering the size of this article. I tried to explain it better and fixed some technical inaccuracies and such. Added a few new wiki links. If anyone can think of anything else along this line we can add to the article, let me know.--Shadowdrak 18:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

This page is crap. None of the examples listed are in any way "languages" that one uses to "communicate" with a computer. A computer is a machine that is able to parse the syntax of certain kinds of notations, and then provides a model (the semantics) using which it can change its internal state or control the output devices (printer, screen).

Not only that, but even though the article makes the brave attempt to categorize any formal notation used with computers under the term "computer language", the term has only the vaguest of meaning. Text formatting notations such as HTML are means to do just that, format text, not to "tell" or "ask" the computer to please make the following words underlined or bold. The division to high-level and low-level languages is fluff, taken from the domain of programming notations and applied mercilessly on any formal notation given as an example in this article. I could go on and on.

Elevating the computer to the status of a human being, by implying that you can "communicate" with it, is utterly ridiculous. Please do not allow articles like this to exist in Wikipedia.

130.232.103.63 08:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Computers have a language to themselves, which allows for this article to remain in existance. This article explains the difference of programming languages used throughout computers, and that constitutes a "language of computers." This article should not be deleted for that reason. TrekCaptainUSA (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Anonymous user 130.232.103.63 may usefully contribute to a page such as neo-luddism. However to do so he or she will have to communicate with computers, and rely on software composed by the collective efforts of many persons who are valued for their aquired skills in programming. If an important technology can be proven "utterly ridiculous" just by someone demonstrating that (s)he can ridicule it, then the claims of 130.232.103.63 are incontrovertible. However I dare say every computer that displays this and bold has correctly implemented before your eyes the HTML (HyperText Markup Language) tags that I used to communicate (command, tell, ask) my intention. At no point has anyone "elevated the computer to the status of a human being" which is indeed a ridiculous claim. Therefore, despite its apparent attraction to luddites and vandals, please Retain and continue to improve this significant article. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I found a nearly identical page on the Princeton web site here [1] which says it was last modified on Friday, 05-Nov-2004 15:44:03 EST.

Do we have permission to use this? The history shows that this block of text was added anonymously on 12 Feb 2008, so it's quite new. People have been making minor changes since then.

I think this page should be deleted or completely rewritten.

--R39525 (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Good catch. I though it looked fishy but was going to not deal with it until I saw your clear reference. Given that it is a clear copy, I am removing basically everything [covered in this diff] related to the edits made by User:59.93.254.84. The later edits were minor, and regardless are based on a probably copyvio. The website you point to is now down, but the Wayback Machine's Version indicates that it was up there is substantially the same form from Feb 21, 2001 to July 07, 2007. It also had a decent bibliography - if only User:59.93.254.84 had also copied that, we might not have even noticed a copyvio. 59.93.254.84 seems to a Calcutta, India, ip address.

The source article was on the personal web space of Stephen Ferguson at the Princeton University Library. Given that the article is no longer there, I will contact him to find out about the work and it's status. Really, it doesn't belong here, but rather in History of programming languages

Besides Wikipedia, the article is currently duplicated on http://elusivemind.net/index.php?/elusivemind/the_history_of_computer_programming_languages/ (with attribution) and http://www.123-online-management-training.com/computer-programming.htm (no attribution) and http://blogs.ibibo.com/visaimmigartionticketing/The-History-of-Computer-Programming-Language.html (no attribution).

I will edit to remove the copyvio, and try to salvage the content that had been overwritten.--Marcinjeske (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

In an extra little twist, it appears that the few paragraphs of content that were not a copyvio... are currently (April 13, 2008) being displayed as the sole content of http://www.xfml.org/.--Marcinjeske (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I added a few things, mostly just wikifying stuff. I also deleted the POV tag because it was irrelevant. This article seems pretty silly; I don't think anything on here isn't covered by another article, but it seems possible that people might end up here, confused and looking for disambiguation in the vast nebula of "computer languages". Hopefully this article would help. Indeterminate (talk) 05:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I recommend merging with Programming language. This page is redundant, poorly written, and inaccurate. It inaccurately differentiates programming and scripting languages, and provides no real value. Nathanaeljones (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately the deletion discussion (at top) was missing the vital aspect that this is not a valid dab page - all entries are WP:PTM / not ambiguous / examples of a WP:BROADCONCEPT. Fixed by converting to the latter. Older versions may have content worth merging into this such as this and older . Ping MfD participants: User:Peter James User:Blackhat999 User:70.51.44.60 User:210.6.254.106 User:Lenticel. Widefox; talk 14:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Agree, it appears to be a valid concept (general-purpose language and domain-specific language are types of computer language), and Category:Programming languages is a subcategory of Category:Computer languages. The RFD (not MFD) was just to discuss whether the redirect should be retained. The old article had some overlap in content but not the same topic; lack of sources would also have been a reason to not keep it - however I wouldn't oppose restoring it if the possible copyright problems mentioned on the talk page have been resolved. Looking at related articles I found a similar redirect that could also be discussed: Database language - should that go to query language as it does now or Database#Languages? Peter James (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have created Draft:Computer language based on the former article. Pinging forme participant at the RfD discussion: @Peter James, Blackhat999, SimonTrew, and Lenticel:. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I made this a list-class article. I can't see that it will ever be more than "list of things that could be intended by the term 'computer language'", but I think it serves a useful purpose. It doesn't fit the definition of a disambiguation page. Peter Flass (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

There is only one occurrence of "computer language" in the reference, so I don't think it's an appropriate source to cite. I also question its credibility, as it contains obvious mistakes. E.g., interpretation does not turn a program in high-level languages into a machine language.

And while I am at it, I also find some items in the list of "types of computer languages" pointless. For example, is there a point to make a distinction between command language and programming language? See page 69 of Programming Languages: Application and Interpretation which says that shell languages (with bash as an example) and domain-specific languages (see page 315) is a kind of programming language. Also note that some of these items, like query language, used to be called programming language, until it's changed to computer languages without any citation (though to be fair, there's also no citation to begin with). --Nullzero (talk) 10:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

The reference was added at Special:diff/700969812 with the reason "Added a reference to the programming languages definition as part of a class assignment." Given the reference does not support the article, I will remove it right now and mark the article as unreferenced. --Nullzero (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@JBW: I saw that you just restored an earlier version, which also restores the reference I removed. The reference is mostly irrelevant, incorrect, and not credible. Would you object to removing the reference again? --Nullzero (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Nullzero: You are perfectly right, and I have removed the reference. Mea culpa: I should have checked it before restoring the earlier version of the article. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I checked through a number of versions of the article from over the years before choosing one to revert to, but I make no claim that the one I chose was perfect, or even the best of all those that are available in the history, so if you see any other aspect of the version I restored that is not good then please feel welcome to improve it without consulting me. Obviously that includes the possibility of restoring the "unreferenced" tag, but my view is that, as I indicated in my edit summary, in its present form the article is effectively serving as a disambiguation page, and as such it doesn't need references, as they belong in the individual articles it links to. In fact I think the best thing to do with this very unsatisfactory article might be to turn it into a true disambiguation page, properly formatted as such. What do you think? JBW (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree that a true disambiguation page would be better. --Nullzero (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Nullzero: OK. Maybe I'll get onto doing that tomorrow, but I don't have time now. Or of course you may like to do it. JBW (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Voice 2402:3A80:11FB:4CB1:FC00:9D91:B495:2A0B (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Df 2405:204:A225:4ABF:0:0:BF6:10B0 (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61558578531997&mibextid=ZbWKwL 182.5.7.163 (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply