Category talk:Solutions by Programming Language: Difference between revisions
Category talk:Solutions by Programming Language (view source)
Revision as of 12:24, 16 June 2010
, 13 years ago→Why?: Why.
(→add SDL: SDL is even a lang :/) |
(→Why?: Why.) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
=Why?=
Why is this called "Solutions by Programming Language" when there's a list of programming *paradigms* but not a single listed *language*? Shouldn't this be "Solutions by Programming Paradigm" instead?
:It's not just paradigms here. There are all kinds of language features. It's solutions by language because the languages are divided by those features. Maybe it should be solutions by language feature or something. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 02:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
:: Except that it's sorting ''languages'' by language feature, rather than solutions. A "Solutions by language feature" would require marking features-used on a per-example basis. That'd be an awesome piece of data to have available for category, search and comparison, but not particularly likely to be well-maintained. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 12:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
: It's the way it is because that was the original category name for browsing by language, the category grew too large, and then organization was applied (first with some hand organization, then automated by language features, which we'd just started cataloging). Since it's still the original category name, the URL is over three years old; there are a lot of links to the page. Take a look at [[:Category:Programming Languages]] to see what happens when no organization is applied to it. All that said, the category page body could use a ''lot'' of cleaning up. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 12:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
=CPP=
CPP is the C preprocessor, which is also the C++ preprocessor, which processes the macros for both languages.
Why not treat it as a language in itself? It is possible to run the preprocessor as a standalone language processor. Examples with macros in C++ and examples with macros in C (e.g., [[99 Bottles of Beer]]) seem to be either duplicates or very similar.
:If CPP is added as separate language, I think it would be better to call it "C preprocessor". Those acronyms tend to be obscure. --[[User:PauliKL|PauliKL]] 13:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
=Language vs Dialect=
Line 9 ⟶ 17:
:Addendum: I also notice LISP vs Common Lisp vs Scheme.[[User:Sgeier|Sgeier]] 18:49, 1 February 2007 (EST)
::[[Common Lisp]] and [[Scheme]] are certainly different. Maybe [[LISP]] is for solutions common to either? or for the ancient Lisp dialects? Good question. --[[User:IanOsgood|IanOsgood]] 17:43, 16 November 2007 (MST)
[[wp:Comparison_of_programming_languages#General_comparison|Ideas on Categorization]]
==add SDL==
Line 30 ⟶ 38:
:[[Bash]] now redirects to [[Bourne Again SHell]]. --[[User:IanOsgood|IanOsgood]] 17:39, 16 November 2007 (MST)
== Organization ==
So we have over 200 languages on the site, meaning that not all the pages fit in a single category listing. A few small changes to [[Template:Language]], [[Template:Feature]] and [[Template:np_language]] resulted in a much nicer-looking and better-organized category page, There's still [[:Category:Programming Languages]] for the complete listing (and any bots and such should already have been drawing from that category). Thoughts? Observations? Small edits to those three templates might reflect the largest visible change to site organization since RC's creation. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 05:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
| |||