Talk:Programming language theory

Computer science Start‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

Actor model and process calculi

I have rephrased the mention of Hewitt's Actor model and the process calculi, since, User:CarlHewitt has made it pretty clear at Actor model and process calculi that he considers them to be quite different animals. --Allan McInnes 06:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PL conferences and journals

I fixed up the section on PLT conferences and journals. It made the following mistakes:

it claimed that ICFP was more well known than PLDI (PLDI is generally considered a more prestigious venue -- it has a lower acceptance rate and articles from it are cited more often)
it listed journals first, and said "sometimes conferences are given a leading role." Conferences are the primary venues to publish PLT research. The journal I would mention is ACM TOPLAS, but I left all of them in except the random Computation Systems & Structures one that I've never heard of and didn't have a Wikipedia article.
It said significant research papers might be published in JACM, I&C, or Theoretical Computer Science. Nobody in PL reads JACM or I&C for PL articles, and the only noteworthy PL article I've seen in I&C was the paper on the pi-calculus. Theoretical Computer Science isn't as prestigious as ACM TOPLAS, so that's a weird claim to make as well.

The original section didn't include many references, and I didn't add any for now. What would be an appropriate way to source these claims? For the conferences vs journals, I could provide citation statistics and acceptance rates, but I don't know what would be appropriate.Christopher Monsanto (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think ICFP is better known in the functional programming/Haskell community, but these things are indeed part of the folklore and difficult to cite. I wouldn't be surprised if the ACM published an overview articles on the conferences in the field once in while. —Ruud 10:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intro Paragraph

I'm not much of a Wikipedia editor so not sure what the protocol for editing a page is, but I'm almost positive the sentence "Most undergraduate computer science programs require coursework in the topic." is inaccurate. What's the process of having it removed (I assume if I just edit it out someone would put it back)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.2.196 (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PL versus PLT

In my experience, the term "PLT" is almost never used to refer to the field of programming languages in general. PLT is almost always used to refer to Felleisen's PLT group, responsible for PLT Racket. The science in general is just called "PL." 98.245.82.155 (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I partially agree, inside academia this is quite often simply referred to as "Programming languages", however it still has a much more specific meaning than that term would have outside of academia. —Ruud 11:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]