Talk:Programming language theory - Revision history

Qwerfjkl (bot): Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)

2024-01-22T20:03:37Z

← Previous revision		Revision as of 20:03, 22 January 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WikiProject ~~Computer~~ ~~science~~\|class=~~start~~\|~~importance=top}}~~		{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=Start\|
			{{WikiProject Computer science\|importance=top}}
			}}

	== Actor model and process calculi ==		== Actor model and process calculi ==

Ejenriquez: /* A branch of Computer Science, but more specifically "Theoretical Computer Science" */

2023-01-01T01:24:08Z

A branch of Computer Science, but more specifically "Theoretical Computer Science"

← Previous revision		Revision as of 01:24, 1 January 2023
Line 53:		Line 53:
	PLT is a branch of computer science, but "theoretical computer science". It's another layer/category lower, however it still fall under the same umbrella.		PLT is a branch of computer science, but "theoretical computer science". It's another layer/category lower, however it still fall under the same umbrella.

	I feel like readers would appreciate that accurate distinction. [[User:Ejenriquez\|Ejenriquez]] ([[User talk:Ejenriquez\|talk]]) 01:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)		I feel like readers would appreciate that accurate distinction. Or I could be wrong, so I haven't officially edited it myself yet. [[User:Ejenriquez\|Ejenriquez]] ([[User talk:Ejenriquez\|talk]]) 01:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Ejenriquez: /* A branch of Computer Science, but more specifically "Theoretical Computer Science" */

2023-01-01T01:23:39Z

A branch of Computer Science, but more specifically "Theoretical Computer Science"

← Previous revision		Revision as of 01:23, 1 January 2023
Line 53:		Line 53:
	PLT is a branch of computer science, but "theoretical computer science". It's another layer/category lower, however it still fall under the same umbrella.		PLT is a branch of computer science, but "theoretical computer science". It's another layer/category lower, however it still fall under the same umbrella.

	I feel like readers would appreciate that accurate ~~description~~. [[User:Ejenriquez\|Ejenriquez]] ([[User talk:Ejenriquez\|talk]]) 01:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)		I feel like readers would appreciate that accurate distinction. [[User:Ejenriquez\|Ejenriquez]] ([[User talk:Ejenriquez\|talk]]) 01:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Ejenriquez: /* A branch of Computer Science, but more specifically "Theoretical Computer Science" */ new section

2023-01-01T01:21:37Z

A branch of Computer Science, but more specifically "Theoretical Computer Science": new section

← Previous revision		Revision as of 01:21, 1 January 2023
Line 48:		Line 48:

	Is there really no development in the academic world on this juvenile topic (NO), is it not added (possible), or is the topic old-fashioned (probably). [[User:ALbertMietus\|ALbertMietus]] ([[User talk:ALbertMietus\|talk]]) 19:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)		Is there really no development in the academic world on this juvenile topic (NO), is it not added (possible), or is the topic old-fashioned (probably). [[User:ALbertMietus\|ALbertMietus]] ([[User talk:ALbertMietus\|talk]]) 19:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

			== A branch of Computer Science, but more specifically "Theoretical Computer Science" ==

			PLT is a branch of computer science, but "theoretical computer science". It's another layer/category lower, however it still fall under the same umbrella.

			I feel like readers would appreciate that accurate description. [[User:Ejenriquez\|Ejenriquez]] ([[User talk:Ejenriquez\|talk]]) 01:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

ALbertMietus: /* Last 30 years ... */ new section

2022-10-03T19:50:39Z

Last 30 years ...: new section

← Previous revision		Revision as of 19:50, 3 October 2022
Line 42:		Line 42:

	{{reflist-talk}}		{{reflist-talk}}

			== Last 30 years ... ==

			When reading the article, it kind of looks the development stops in the 90's. Also the _talks_ are quite old; the last 10 years no real new topics are added -- only few details as who/when introduced things in the past.

			Is there really no development in the academic world on this juvenile topic (NO), is it not added (possible), or is the topic old-fashioned (probably). [[User:ALbertMietus\|ALbertMietus]] ([[User talk:ALbertMietus\|talk]]) 19:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

SineBot: Dating comment by 46.132.4.130 - ""

2020-01-07T08:31:46Z

Dating comment by 46.132.4.130 - ""

← Previous revision		Revision as of 08:31, 7 January 2020
Line 39:		Line 39:

	==History - Edsger W. Dijkstra and structured programming==		==History - Edsger W. Dijkstra and structured programming==
	I would consider [[Edsger W. Dijkstra\|Dijkstra's]] advocacy of [[Structured_programming\|structured program decomposition]] an important development in the theory of programming languages. [[Special:Contributions/46.132.4.130\|46.132.4.130]] ([[User talk:46.132.4.130\|talk]])		I would consider [[Edsger W. Dijkstra\|Dijkstra's]] advocacy of [[Structured_programming\|structured program decomposition]] an important development in the theory of programming languages. [[Special:Contributions/46.132.4.130\|46.132.4.130]] ([[User talk:46.132.4.130\|talk]]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|undated]] comment added 08:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	{{reflist-talk}}		{{reflist-talk}}

46.132.4.130 at 08:30, 7 January 2020

2020-01-07T08:30:39Z

← Previous revision		Revision as of 08:30, 7 January 2020
Line 37:		Line 37:

	- <ref>http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/lisp.html </ref> <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/164.52.0.235\|164.52.0.235]] ([[User talk:164.52.0.235#top\|talk]]) 13:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		- <ref>http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/lisp.html </ref> <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/164.52.0.235\|164.52.0.235]] ([[User talk:164.52.0.235#top\|talk]]) 13:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			==History - Edsger W. Dijkstra and structured programming==
			I would consider [[Edsger W. Dijkstra\|Dijkstra's]] advocacy of [[Structured_programming\|structured program decomposition]] an important development in the theory of programming languages. [[Special:Contributions/46.132.4.130\|46.132.4.130]] ([[User talk:46.132.4.130\|talk]])

	{{reflist-talk}}		{{reflist-talk}}

GreenC bot: Add {{reflist-talk}} to #History - John MacCarthy's Lisp is not Lambda Calculus based (via reftalk bot)

2019-02-12T11:35:38Z

Add {{reflist-talk}} to #History - John MacCarthy's Lisp is not Lambda Calculus based (via reftalk bot)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 11:35, 12 February 2019
Line 37:		Line 37:

	- <ref>http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/lisp.html </ref> <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/164.52.0.235\|164.52.0.235]] ([[User talk:164.52.0.235#top\|talk]]) 13:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		- <ref>http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/lisp.html </ref> <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/164.52.0.235\|164.52.0.235]] ([[User talk:164.52.0.235#top\|talk]]) 13:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			{{reflist-talk}}

SineBot: Signing comment by 164.52.0.235 - ""

2018-05-30T13:29:36Z

Signing comment by 164.52.0.235 - ""

← Previous revision		Revision as of 13:29, 30 May 2018
Line 36:		Line 36:
	"c. To use functions as arguments, one needs a notation for functions, and it seemed natural to use the λ-notation of Church (1941). I didn’t understand the rest of his book, so I wasn’t tempted to try to implement his more general mechanism for defining functions. Church used higher order functionals instead of using conditional expressions. Conditional expressions are much more readily implemented on computers."		"c. To use functions as arguments, one needs a notation for functions, and it seemed natural to use the λ-notation of Church (1941). I didn’t understand the rest of his book, so I wasn’t tempted to try to implement his more general mechanism for defining functions. Church used higher order functionals instead of using conditional expressions. Conditional expressions are much more readily implemented on computers."

			- <ref>http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/lisp.html </ref> <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures\|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/164.52.0.235\|164.52.0.235]] ([[User talk:164.52.0.235#top\|talk]]) 13:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	- <ref>http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/lisp.html </ref>

164.52.0.235 at 13:28, 30 May 2018

2018-05-30T13:28:30Z

← Previous revision		Revision as of 13:28, 30 May 2018
Line 29:		Line 29:
	The statement "Simula also introduced the concept of [[coroutine]]s." I believe is wrong. It may be the first high level language to do so. But the Honeywell H200 computer implemented coroutines in hardware with the CSM instruction. And from other information on Simule it was SIMULA II that introduced coroutines in 1967.		The statement "Simula also introduced the concept of [[coroutine]]s." I believe is wrong. It may be the first high level language to do so. But the Honeywell H200 computer implemented coroutines in hardware with the CSM instruction. And from other information on Simule it was SIMULA II that introduced coroutines in 1967.
	[[User:Steamerandy\|Steamerandy]] ([[User talk:Steamerandy\|talk]]) 17:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)		[[User:Steamerandy\|Steamerandy]] ([[User talk:Steamerandy\|talk]]) 17:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

			==History - John MacCarthy's Lisp is not Lambda Calculus based==

			John MacCarthy just borrowed the term lambda for anonymous function.

			"c. To use functions as arguments, one needs a notation for functions, and it seemed natural to use the λ-notation of Church (1941). I didn’t understand the rest of his book, so I wasn’t tempted to try to implement his more general mechanism for defining functions. Church used higher order functionals instead of using conditional expressions. Conditional expressions are much more readily implemented on computers."

			- <ref>http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/lisp.html </ref>