Rosetta Code:Village Pump/SpecificationLanguages: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(forgot to sign) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Vptopic |
{{Vptopic |
||
|topic= |
|topic=SpecificationLanguages |
||
|summary=What languages can be included in Rosetta Code? |
|summary=What languages can be included in Rosetta Code? |
||
}} |
}} |
Revision as of 13:35, 1 August 2013
SpecificationLanguages
This is a particular discussion thread among many which consider Rosetta Code.
This is a particular discussion thread among many which consider Rosetta Code.
Summary
What languages can be included in Rosetta Code?
Discussion
I was wondering if RC is strictly about programming languages or whether specification languages could be interesting, too? More specifically, I'm thinking of specification languages that allow to "solve" their models, i.e. create example instantiations automatically. Those languages are relatively well-suited to implement logic puzzles like Zebra puzzle. Some of these languages have pretty interesting semantics and syntax, for example Alloy.
So, is it programming languages only, or do we tolerate languages that are only "somewhat executable"? - Wmeyer (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)