Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Very high-level programming language
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CharlotteWebb (talk | contribs) at 01:12, 4 February 2007 (closing debate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 01:12, 4 February 2007 by CharlotteWebb (talk | contribs) (closing debate)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
blatant bullshit. there's no such thing as very high programming language they might use syntax that is never used in other programming languages, such as direct English syntax. obviously a joke.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The P++ Man (talk • contribs) .
- Strong keep. No evidence it's a joke, examples are actual languages. The term gets many ghits for scholarly publications, and appears to have been the subject of a technical symposium. (Proceedings, Symposium on Very High Level Languages. SIGPLAN Notices (ACM) 9, 4 (April 1974), 1-132) DMacks 20:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- well show me some examples that are very high programming languages. i would be happy to use them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The P++ Man (talk • contribs) 20:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- To quote the article itself "A good example of a very high-level programming language is Logo". BDL (see doi:10.1145/359863.359886) also. DMacks 20:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- well show me some examples that are very high programming languages. i would be happy to use them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The P++ Man (talk • contribs) 20:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep as per DMacks MichaelJLowe 21:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, not keen on the phrasing of the AFD, but VHLL exists alright. As per DMacks, check out Logo, and ISBN 0070350981 is a tidy book on the subject. The Rambling Man 21:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, please search when you are unfamiliar with a topic. Scheme (programming language) is another example. But arguably so is csh. --Dhartung | Talk 21:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DMacks. By "Logo" I assume you mean Logo (programming language) not Logo. --Bduke 00:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, the term seems really pointless and arbitrary compared to other high level languages, but apparently has been used in academia. Krimpet 01:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep More examples: SETL and ProSet. Google Books is awash with references on this topic [1], it's a shame the nominator didn't do a little basic research before declaring a notable topic "blatant bullshit". If you disagree with one statement, then remove it or request a citation. As it happens, you're wrong - there is no reason why parsable natural language syntax cannot be used as as a programming language with a clever enough compiler or interpreter. --Canley 05:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious keep. You can't say that VHLL don't exist or aren't notable when the ACM has a symposium on them!--OinkOink 06:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.