Talk:A+ (programming language)
![]() | Computing Stub‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() | Computer science Unassessed | ||||||||||||||||
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the A+ (programming language) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Sales pitch?
Somehow that seemed more like a sales pitch for A+ than a real article about it. I'd like to know exactly why its so efficant and portable and wonderful.
- Mostly fixed. This could really use a screenshot, though. I'll put one in later. Quamaretto 14:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Typing Discipline: Strong?
There is a lot of implicit casting going on, does that still qualify as strong typing? 83.67.217.254 14:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It's dynamic typing, as dynamic as it gets. Monadic Mike 20:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Successor language?
What is a successor language? I would imagine that Algol 68 is a successor to Algol 64. Maybe Fortran 90 a successor to Fortran IV and Fortran II. Or C++ a successor to C. Lacking a suitable definition, I intuitively feel that in order to be a true successor, a language should offer something of a migration path and be similar to the old language in many important details. Not so for A+ to K, it may share authors, and both may be similar to APL.
I took the statement that K is a successor to A+ out as it sounded too much like a sales pitch.
If there is a successor to A+, it might be Java, provided that (ugh) Morgan starts rewriting their A+ applications in Java.
Monadic Mike 20:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Neutrality Issues
It's well within reason to state that this article appears to be more of an advertisement; promoting the language rather than just purely providing neutral information about the topic. I believe it needs some re-writing. Indigochild777 (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)