imported>EvanBaldonado: Replace em-dash with with en-dash.

2025-12-31T08:51:29Z

Replace em-dash with with en-dash.

← Previous revision		Revision as of 08:51, 31 December 2025
Line 17:		Line 17:
	Programming languages have some similarity to [[natural languages]] in that they can allow communication of ideas between people. That is, programs are generally human-readable and can express complex ideas. However, the kinds of ideas that programming languages can express are ultimately limited to the domain of computation.<ref name="BookProgrammingLanguagesChauhanSharad">{{cite book \|last1=Chauhan \|first1=Sharad \|title=Programming Languages - Design and Constructs \|date=2013 \|publisher=University Science Press \|isbn=978-93-81159-41-5 \|page=235 \|url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Programming_Languages_Design_and_Constru/qKRnohkDbb0C?hl=en&gbpv=0 \|access-date=10 September 2025 \|language=English \|chapter=10 \|quote=Like our natural languages, programming languages facilitate the expression and communication between people. However, programming languages differ from natural languages in two ways. First, programming languages also enables communication of ideas between people and computing machines. Second, programming languages have a narrower expressive domain than our natural languages. That is, they facilitate only the communication of computational ideas.}}</ref>		Programming languages have some similarity to [[natural languages]] in that they can allow communication of ideas between people. That is, programs are generally human-readable and can express complex ideas. However, the kinds of ideas that programming languages can express are ultimately limited to the domain of computation.<ref name="BookProgrammingLanguagesChauhanSharad">{{cite book \|last1=Chauhan \|first1=Sharad \|title=Programming Languages - Design and Constructs \|date=2013 \|publisher=University Science Press \|isbn=978-93-81159-41-5 \|page=235 \|url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Programming_Languages_Design_and_Constru/qKRnohkDbb0C?hl=en&gbpv=0 \|access-date=10 September 2025 \|language=English \|chapter=10 \|quote=Like our natural languages, programming languages facilitate the expression and communication between people. However, programming languages differ from natural languages in two ways. First, programming languages also enables communication of ideas between people and computing machines. Second, programming languages have a narrower expressive domain than our natural languages. That is, they facilitate only the communication of computational ideas.}}</ref>

	The term ''[[computer language]]'' is sometimes used interchangeably with ''programming language''<ref>Robert A. Edmunds, The Prentice-Hall standard glossary of computer terminology, Prentice-Hall, 1985, p. 91</ref> but some contend they are different concepts. Some contend that programming languages are a subset of computer languages.<ref>Pascal Lando, Anne Lapujade, Gilles Kassel, and Frédéric Fürst, ''[http://home.mis.u-picardie.fr/~site-ic/site/IMG/pdf/ICSOFT2007_final.pdf Towards a General Ontology of Computer Programs]'' {{webarchive\|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150707093557/http://home.mis.u-picardie.fr/~site-ic/site/IMG/pdf/ICSOFT2007_final.pdf\|date=7 July 2015}}, [http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/icsoft/icsoft2007-1.html ICSOFT 2007] {{webarchive\|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100427063709/http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/icsoft/icsoft2007-1.html\|date=27 April 2010}}, pp. 163–170</ref> Some use ''computer language'' to classify a language used in computing that is not considered a programming language.{{Citation needed\|date=October 2024}} Some regard a programming language as a theoretical construct for programming an [[abstract machine]], and a computer language as the subset thereof that runs on a physical computer, which has finite hardware resources.<ref>R. Narasimhan, Programming Languages and Computers: A Unified Metatheory, pp. ~~189—247~~ in Franz Alt, Morris Rubinoff (eds.) Advances in computers, Volume 8, Academic Press, 1994, {{ISBN\|0-12-012108-5}}, p.215: "[...] the model [...] for computer languages differs from that [...] for programming languages in only two respects. In a computer language, there are only finitely many names—or registers—which can assume only finitely many values—or states—and these states are not further distinguished in terms of any other attributes. [author's footnote:] This may sound like a truism but its implications are far-reaching. For example, it would imply that any model for programming languages, by fixing certain of its parameters or features, should be reducible in a natural way to a model for computer languages."</ref>		The term ''[[computer language]]'' is sometimes used interchangeably with ''programming language''<ref>Robert A. Edmunds, The Prentice-Hall standard glossary of computer terminology, Prentice-Hall, 1985, p. 91</ref> but some contend they are different concepts. Some contend that programming languages are a subset of computer languages.<ref>Pascal Lando, Anne Lapujade, Gilles Kassel, and Frédéric Fürst, ''[http://home.mis.u-picardie.fr/~site-ic/site/IMG/pdf/ICSOFT2007_final.pdf Towards a General Ontology of Computer Programs]'' {{webarchive\|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150707093557/http://home.mis.u-picardie.fr/~site-ic/site/IMG/pdf/ICSOFT2007_final.pdf\|date=7 July 2015}}, [http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/icsoft/icsoft2007-1.html ICSOFT 2007] {{webarchive\|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100427063709/http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/icsoft/icsoft2007-1.html\|date=27 April 2010}}, pp. 163–170</ref> Some use ''computer language'' to classify a language used in computing that is not considered a programming language.{{Citation needed\|date=October 2024}} Some regard a programming language as a theoretical construct for programming an [[abstract machine]], and a computer language as the subset thereof that runs on a physical computer, which has finite hardware resources.<ref>R. Narasimhan, Programming Languages and Computers: A Unified Metatheory, pp. 189–247 in Franz Alt, Morris Rubinoff (eds.) Advances in computers, Volume 8, Academic Press, 1994, {{ISBN\|0-12-012108-5}}, p.215: "[...] the model [...] for computer languages differs from that [...] for programming languages in only two respects. In a computer language, there are only finitely many names—or registers—which can assume only finitely many values—or states—and these states are not further distinguished in terms of any other attributes. [author's footnote:] This may sound like a truism but its implications are far-reaching. For example, it would imply that any model for programming languages, by fixing certain of its parameters or features, should be reducible in a natural way to a model for computer languages."</ref>

	[[John C. Reynolds]] emphasizes that a [[formal specification]] language is as much a programming language as is a language intended for execution. He argues that textual and even graphical input formats that affect the behavior of a computer are programming languages, despite the fact they are commonly not Turing-complete, and remarks that ignorance of programming language concepts is the reason for many flaws in input formats.<ref>John C. Reynolds, "Some thoughts on teaching programming and programming languages", ''[[SIGPLAN]] Notices'', Volume 43, Issue 11, November 2008, p.109</ref>		[[John C. Reynolds]] emphasizes that a [[formal specification]] language is as much a programming language as is a language intended for execution. He argues that textual and even graphical input formats that affect the behavior of a computer are programming languages, despite the fact they are commonly not Turing-complete, and remarks that ignorance of programming language concepts is the reason for many flaws in input formats.<ref>John C. Reynolds, "Some thoughts on teaching programming and programming languages", ''[[SIGPLAN]] Notices'', Volume 43, Issue 11, November 2008, p.109</ref>
Line 81:		Line 81:
	The following are examples of well-formed token sequences in this grammar: <code>12345</code>, <code>()</code> and <code>(a b c232 (1))</code>.		The following are examples of well-formed token sequences in this grammar: <code>12345</code>, <code>()</code> and <code>(a b c232 (1))</code>.

	Not all syntactically correct programs are semantically correct. Many syntactically correct programs are nonetheless ill-formed, per the language's rules; and may (depending on the language specification and the soundness of the implementation) result in an error on translation or execution. In some cases, such programs may exhibit [[undefined behavior]]. Even when a program is well-defined within a language, it may still have a meaning that is not intended by the person who wrote it.		Not all syntactically correct programs are semantically correct. Many syntactically correct programs are nonetheless ill-formed, per the language's rules, and may (depending on the language specification and the soundness of the implementation) result in an error on translation or execution. In some cases, such programs may exhibit [[undefined behavior]]. Even when a program is well-defined within a language, it may still have a meaning that is not intended by the person who wrote it.

	Using [[natural language]] as an example, it may not be possible to assign a meaning to a grammatically correct sentence or the sentence may be false:		Using [[natural language]] as an example, it may not be possible to assign a meaning to a grammatically correct sentence or the sentence may be false:
Line 243:		Line 243:

	==Dialects, flavors and implementations==		==Dialects, flavors and implementations==
			{{Unreferenced section\|date=December 2025}}
	A '''dialect''' of a programming language or a [[data exchange language]] is a (relatively small) variation or extension of the language that does not change its intrinsic nature. With languages such as [[Scheme (programming language)\|Scheme]] and [[Forth (programming language)\|Forth]], standards may be considered insufficient, inadequate, or illegitimate by implementors, so often they will deviate from the standard, making a new [[dialect]]. In other cases, a dialect is created for use in a [[domain-specific language]], often a subset. In the [[Lisp (programming language)\|Lisp]] world, most languages that use basic [[S-expression]] syntax and Lisp-like semantics are considered Lisp dialects, although they vary wildly as do, say, [[Racket (programming language)\|Racket]] and [[Clojure]]. As it is common for one language to have several dialects, it can become quite difficult for an inexperienced programmer to find the right documentation. The [[BASIC]] language has [[List of BASIC dialects\|many dialects]].		A '''dialect''' of a programming language or a [[data exchange language]] is a (relatively small) variation or extension of the language that does not change its intrinsic nature. With languages such as [[Scheme (programming language)\|Scheme]] and [[Forth (programming language)\|Forth]], standards may be considered insufficient, inadequate, or illegitimate by implementors, so often they will deviate from the standard, making a new [[dialect]]. In other cases, a dialect is created for use in a [[domain-specific language]], often a subset. In the [[Lisp (programming language)\|Lisp]] world, most languages that use basic [[S-expression]] syntax and Lisp-like semantics are considered Lisp dialects, although they vary wildly as do, say, [[Racket (programming language)\|Racket]] and [[Clojure]]. As it is common for one language to have several dialects, it can become quite difficult for an inexperienced programmer to find the right documentation. The [[BASIC]] language has [[List of BASIC dialects\|many dialects]].

imported>Gurkubondinn: Reverted 1 edit by 59.89.138.229 (talk) to last revision by JuUunIOr

2025-11-02T09:16:37Z

Reverted 1 edit by 59.89.138.229 (talk) to last revision by JuUunIOr

Show changes

imported>HMSLavender: Reverted edits by 110.44.116.169 (talk) (AV)

2025-07-01T04:44:40Z

Reverted edits by 110.44.116.169 (talk) (AV)

← Previous revision	Revision as of 04:44, 1 July 2025
(No difference)

imported>Annh07: Reverted 1 pending edit by FFF8964KKK to revision 1290937955 by Headbomb

2025-06-02T08:02:17Z

Reverted 1 pending edit by FFF8964KKK to revision 1290937955 by Headbomb

← Previous revision	Revision as of 08:02, 2 June 2025
(No difference)

imported>Headbomb: /* 2000s to present */ | Altered template type. Add: class, date, title, eprint, authors 1-4. Changed bare reference to CS1/2. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes. | Use this tool. Report bugs. | #UCB_Gadget

2025-05-18T01:42:41Z