Category talk:Programming Languages: Difference between revisions
Category talk:Programming Languages (view source)
Revision as of 22:09, 28 April 2009
, 15 years agoReasons '''works with''' is unsatisfactory.
No edit summary |
(Reasons '''works with''' is unsatisfactory.) |
||
Line 14:
:::: This would mean also that all ''Pascal'' examples "working with" this or that "implementation" (gpc, FreePascal, TurboPascal...) should become ''dialects of''...? With Pascal, the template '''works with''' sufficed, or at least so it seemed to me. Maybe SQL after all fell in the same trap? --[[User:ShinTakezou|ShinTakezou]] 18:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::I think BASIC has the same kind of thing going on. We need to work to distinguish dialects from implementations (if we want a distinction) if we want this to work. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 19:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
::::: '''works with''' is particularly unsatisfactory to me because it provides information about a programming example without an effective way to organize that information in navigable categories. With separate dialect and implementation templates, the dialect category can be made a subcategory of the parent language, while at the same time being listed as supported by particular implementations. In this sense, one can identify C++98 as a dialect of C++, and identify which C++ implementations support the C++98 dialect. An implementation's nonstandard extensions or definition of a standard's undefined behavior (i.e. gcc C and C++ language extensions, or a Brainfuck compiler's particular interpretation of BF's rather loose standard) would count as their own dialect. (It's notable that such dialects don't necessarily have only one implementation; ActiveState Perl and the official Perl distribution, for example, both implement the same dialect of the language, as far as I'm aware.) --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 22:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
| |||