This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance).

The Procedural column doesn't appear to be based on any objective criteria. For instance Ocaml is listed as imperative procedural whereas Standard ML is listed as imperative non-procedural. The column should just be removed. --Alextgordon (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is very vauge. For example Common Lisp and C# are marked as event driven. This is nonsense. By same logic C++, D and Python are also event driven. Even languages that are commonly Event Driven, like JavaScript, are not really event driven languages, just commonly used as such due to web browser environment. Similary Go is not really even driven. Quite the contrary. Maybe actor like languages Erlang / Elixir could be classified as event driven, but even that it debatable.

I suggest removing this column, as almost any language in the table can be used in Event Driven fashion, including C, PHP or Tcl. 2A02:168:F609:1:BEDA:2803:4006:38FD (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article on Event-driven programming explains that it can be done in any language. There is no such thing as an event-driven language. I'll go ahead and remove it. Alec Gargett (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the "Standardized?" column for OpenLisp to "maybe". The page originally stated that OpenLisp "supercedes ISLISP". I didn't like this because OpenLisp is nothing more than an implementation of ISLISP, and AFAIK doesn't even have a standard of its own. We don't say bash is standardized because it "supercedes" POSIX sh. The wording as it stands is also unclear: what is "optional" supposed to mean? I'd prefer if it said something clearer like "Superset of [standard language]".

Aside: I'm not even sure OpenLisp should be included at all; we don't have a separate row for every single Python implementation, for example. I can't say for sure that OpenLisp is distinct enough to be counted as its own language separate from ISLISP, but someone more expert needs to make the call here. —⁠Desacc̱oinṯier 06:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly asking, why is AMPL not included? Is it not considered a programming language? Or is it just not popular enough?

All feedback is appreciated. Tome.rod (talk) 07:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to merge Comparison of Java and C++ into this article. The Java/C++ comparison article is probably a violation of WP: INDISCRIMINATE in some form. While I understand from reading the previous AfD that sources do draw comparisons between these two languages, I am also sure that comparisons are made between many different pairs of languages in reliable sources. Even if we picked a couple dozen languages to write comparison articles about, that would require the creation of hundreds if not thousands of articles that would be incredibly difficult to navigate. Some comparison already exists here. As it currently stands, the merge candidate is a litany of original research that is painful to sift through. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Java and C++ are compared more commonly compared than many other pairings. There is significant notable content and merging would add undue weight. Quarl ^(talk) 00:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]