Talk:Very high-level programming language

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Very high-level programming language article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on January 31, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Computing: Software

	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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Python and Logo

Given Python's features and it's many bindings (GL, Gnome and KDE to name a few), I think it's a bad example. Logo however, would be a good example because it can only be used to draw things with. KTurtle is a free implementation of it, and allows the programmer to draw lines with a turtle. Good for educating children the very basics of coding.

I agree with you and also think Logo would be a better example. I'm changing that right now. However, I've also seen Python and Javascript been mentioned as "very high level". I actually think it's a misnamer and I'm going to mention it in the article. Sarg 21:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is great, thanks!

Next time I suggest being bold and updating it yourself. I don't bite :D Sarg 07:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think stating this this is "used primarily as a professional programmer productivity tool" and then giving Logo as an example is a little contradictiory. Perhaps very high-level programming languages are not used for anything except education. If not, we should find better examples. Syndicate 15:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If "goal orientation" is taken to be a definition of a "Very High Level Language" then SNOBAL, ICon, Idol should be included. Prolog and other rule oriented languages qualify but may not satisfy the Church-Turing thesis for a "programming" language. Goal orientation normally implies backward or forward chaining and I don't immediately see how Logo qualifies.

Python and JavaScript: very high-level, or proprietary?

I have trouble understanding the meaning of this line:

"Very high-level programming languages are usually proprietary software. Some high-level programming languages such as Python and JavaScript are often (incorrectly) considered to be such"

What does "to be such" refer to? Is it saying that Python and JS are considered to be proprietary software, or to be a VHLPL? There is some ambiguity there as to what 'such' is referring to, which should be cleared up.

If "goal orientation" is taken to be a definition of a "Very High Level Language" then SNOBAL, ICon, Idol should be included. Prolog and other rule oriented languages qualify but may not satisfy the Church-Turing thesis for a "programming" language. Goal orientation normally implies backward or forward chaining and I don't immediately see how Logo qualifies.

Need newer references

The two references are from the 70s, but there supposedly was a conference on VHLL in 2004. Please add some newer references, indicating whether "VHLL" has changed meaning in the last 30 years. --IanOsgood 02:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the 2004 LSM meeting preceedings as an example of it still being in current use. I added an the announcement of the 2003 LSM meeting, as it indicates that the same types of languages are still considered VHLL. DMacks 03:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't see any reference to VHLL in the first link. From the those links, I presume that Lisp would be included? Got any other refs? (I'm nagging because I fear that "VHLL" is being used as a stick to beat down the less high level langauges.) --IanOsgood 03:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The LSM2003 link specifically mentions scheme and lisp. "The first ref" contains VHLL in its title. The first (at the time you wrote) LSM ref (2004 preceedings) had a subtitle specifically indicating it was the VHLL track of that meeting (I have since added that to the ref in the article). I also added a ref to that same meeting from a lisp users' wiki, which indicates that there was a VHLL track that did discuss lisp. DMacks 03:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that in this reference [1], I don't see any relation to VHLL except the title of the lightning talk track! The talks are all about Lisp/Scheme internals. I was hoping for something meatier, that would help differentiate between a so-called VHLL and a high-level language. --IanOsgood 17:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ref was added to illustrate modern usage of the term and as a continuation of its 1970s meaning, as per your request. Now you're asking for something somewhat different. That ref is not a public forum discussing the topic or a high-level introduction to the field itself, but addresses specific lower-level issues. By listing talks under the heading of VHLL, that means the topics of those talks are VHLLish, no? DMacks 18:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propietary?

Usually proprietary? To me that means a majority of the time, and by such a margin that encountering the other case would be odd. Without numbers, it's just something some guy said.

Why mention proprietary status at all? It sticks out like a sore thumb when the low-level and high-level articles are about the technical aspects of how a language is implemented or programs in it are coded. Does Python become lower-level when the updates to the source code are released? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.143.68.115 (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

BASIC

Isn't BASIC a VHLPL?--82.29.80.122 15:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction in Examples

From the article - "Very high-level programming languages are usually limited to a very specific application, purpose, or type of task." Then it goes on to list Python, Ruby, and Scheme as examples. I feel this is a contradiction. The three languages given as examples are general purpose programming languages with an extremely broad range of applications. I'm not sure which is the intended meaning of the term so I can't say whether the examples are okay and the leading statement is inaccurate, or if the examples are bad. From the references I checked, (but I did not go into deep detail) it appears that the examples are good and the notion that they are limited in scope is inaccurate. 216.36.186.2 (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domain-specific language vs high-level language

If "higher level" refers to the level of abstraction, then the more abstract a language the more it provides operations found in the conceptual roots of mathematics. For example: lisp, scheme and haskell provide operations from lambda calculus; prolog and answer set programming provide operations from first order logic; occam provides operations from communicating sequential processes which is related to recursion theory.

On the other hand, when a language becomes specific to a particular domain, such as the Business Definition Language cited in the article, it becomes a domain-specific language.

Now if only I could find a reference... pgr94 (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No examples?

From this talk page I gather that all examples for VHLLs were deleted for lack of consensus. If there's no agreement, the article could at least say what languages are considered a VHLL by some people and why, and why others disagree. In its current state the article could as well be deleted because it leaves the reader absolutely clueless. Or are all VHLLs so Domain Specific that nobody's ever heard of them except their single developer-user?--88.73.1.202 (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to pipe in with some examples that I think relevant. Leopard Programming Language, AutoHotkey (but not Autoit, basic-like syntax), DOS Batch files, Ren'Py (there are many others of this type). According to what I am reading ("usually limited to a very specific application, purpose, or type of task,and often scripting languages"; "they might use syntax that is never used in other programming languages, such as direct English syntax") there is an ease of use to the language, syntax that professional developers might find offensive but non-programmers useful and can build _targeted_ _solutions_ quickly (but aren't suited for general programming). Sorry if my post doesn't meet the guidelines here, not sure how to use the talk system. Paxdomine (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is unclear. Does VHLL mean its original definition, namely a language usable by non-programmers, in other words a 4GL, or declarative language, such as SQL? Or is it a language having high orders of abstraction, such as Scheme? Or does it mean what HLL or 3GL used to mean, e.g. Python? And who decides on the definition? Note that VHLL was used mainly in the 1980s, so the original definition is the most appropriate. Jonw2 (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GPT has transformed actual human language into a "very high-level programming language"

Much like what pseudo-code-approaching languages have almost (seemingly) tried to achieve, a coding-oriented AI can now take natural language instructions to generate code, i.e. a programmer productivity tool. If this seems half-baked to anyone, consider tokens and combinations thereof as actual lexical tokens, the composition of which will trigger deterministically set computer instructions. Perhaps this deserves insertion or at least consideration. 90.132.212.6 (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]