Talk:A+ (programming language)

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)

"Aggressive extensions"?
You mean its extensions thump you through the computer screen? Its absurd to describe it in this way. And saying its got "aggressive extensions" fails to give any significant information anout those extensions, since "agression in the context of computer languages is undefined. 89.240.202.189 (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's also foul-mouthed. A google on site www.aplusdev.org on aggressive gives one hit, and not in connections with "extensions". I think the terming is a verbal blunder intended to be some admiring phrase but giving the exact opposite impression. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 14:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I cleaned up this one. I'm not quite sure that A was a large extension of APL, since aplusdev.org doesn't claim that A is APL extended. Instead it claims that A was developed to replace APL. I rewrote so. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 15:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Notability?
Now, why was the article marked ? Such a template addition should be accompanied with a note on the talk page. I can't see any. Merging with other articles is not an option, that would disrupt the candidate destination articles. The fact that A+ somehow is a descendent to APL makes it notable. The issue is not notability, it is that there are too few independent sources. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 15:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)