Template talk:Comparison of programming languages

No c or c++ example! That is insane! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.165.114 (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

ABAP
Mentioning the almost-unknown and almost proprietary ABAP language here (the Comparison of ABAP and Java article says ABAP is used mostly inside SAP) is almost like advertisement. I think there are many other object oriented programming languages which could deserve such an honor. I'm thus removing that link from the table. --Blaisorblade (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Though the article is right that ABAP is a proprietary language by SAP AG the comparison between ABAP and Java is legitimate and by no means advertising. Both languages play a major role in development of mid- to large-sized enterprise applications (with ABAP being the older language). SAP products have a large market share in the enterprise software field world-wide. Thus chances are high that as a developer you need to deal with them in one way or the other. Either because you need to deal with legacy R/3 applications or because you need to develop new software based on SAP technology. The comparison to Java is even more valid as the SAP community is slowly moving from old ABAP to newer J2EE (Java) based solutions. But because this is a slow process (very slow in deed) and because both languages are still being improved as a project manager or software developer you are often left alone with the decission to go with either one. As of today both methods are equaly valid for new SAP projects with no other language to choose from. Dennis Schulmeister (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Mainframe programming languages almost ignored
Why is it that almost every Wikipedia article on computing ignores the forst 50 years or so of programming? Where are full comparisons of traditional languages like IBM/360 Assembler/COBOL/PL/1/RPG?

Z/Architecture is the current version of the IBM/360 family with mostly full upward compatibility for 40 years Also PL/1 (where shown) is only as an imperative & Object-oriented paradigm, with no mention of procedural or structured)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.18.65 (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

DBMS is a programming language?
I think including applications and systems in this template is confusing and will lead to disorganization. I propose removing the "Database RDBMS" entry as off-topic. Joja lozzo  14:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I removed some of them from category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.70.197.164 (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Changing the template title
This template is about "criteria" for comparison. So I suggest to change the title of this template to "Template:Criteria of comparison for programming languages" Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I really think that "existing" template title is ambiguous. Can I change it to "Template:Criteria of comparison of programming languages" or "Template:Factors of comparison of programming languages"? Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The old title wasn't ambiguous, but the new title is still OK. I preferred the old title, since it was more concise. Jarble (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 10 June 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE  14:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:Factors of comparison of programming languages → Template:Comparison of programming languages – The original title of this template (Comparison of programming languages) was less redundant than the new title, which is unnecessarily verbose. Jarble (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. No, this template is about factors and this word is not redundant. We compare C and C++ according to this factors, so factor is not redundant. For example "assignment" is an abstract factor and not a concrete item. I really think that the correct title is "Comparison factors of programming languages". Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination. Old title was perfectly accurate, I don't really understand the claim above that the longer title is more precise.  SnowFire (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I only saw an expired move request and processed it. I don't have an opinion on the title itself. If there is a consensus that the move was wrong, I'll happily reverse it, though. ASUKITE  14:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Asukite It is very elementary and obvious. So I think that we can change that to "Comparison factors of programming languages" without consensus, this title is more abstract than "Factors of comparison of programming languages". If has any objections, I will answer to him. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Comparison factors" is a rather confusing phrase: I don't think I've ever seen this phrase before. I still prefer the old title ("Comparisons of programming languages.") Jarble (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I stand by my !vote. "Factors" isn't adding useful semantic value here.  What is happening in the articles in this template?  Comparisons of programming languages.    The concise title is perfectly accurate.  Note that we can assume that the editor who created the template under the old name also supported it.  SnowFire (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)