Talk:special purpose language

special purpose language
Originally tagged for speedy delete, but it looks OK to me. That is, it is a valid class of programming languages. --Connel MacKenzie 21:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks more SoP than most things that have been on this page. But it's not my area, so I'd like to hear more. DCDuring TALK 22:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, keep on this, it's not especially SoP (I'd've assumed 'language' referred to, y'know, human languages, had I not known the term). So, since it's not immediately obvious outside of context and someone might legitimately go to a dictionary to look it up, I want it to stay. --Wytukaze 14:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Is that the standard, that we would have to understand which specific meaning an entry had without knowing anything about the context? Lets say that we had two possible meanings of "language", but only one possible meaning of "special-purpose" (the simplest possible case). Then we should have two senses of "special purpose language". Then the user would need to be able to select which of the two meanings applied. That would presumably be based on -- context. What would we have we saved the user? DCDuring TALK 15:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it is valid to ascribe a rule to every "decision" on RFD. It helps, when a rule is obvious.  But the rule not being obvious, shouldn't prevent a decision; several similar decisions are what might imply a new guideline.  In this case, we've saved a user from re-starting their search, piecemeal, if they searched for the set-phrase.  --Connel MacKenzie 10:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If we aren't making decisions based on a mechanically applicable rule {and we often can't), then we are calling on precedent and/or setting precedent. In this case, I am a bit concerned as to the precedent being set. If this precedent were followed there are a great number of low-value entries that could not be rejected except arbitrarily. Arbitrariness is the last thing we need. DCDuring TALK 16:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It it required to use a pragmatic assessment for the selection of meaning in interpretation of the term. To me, this is clearly sum-of-parts, as it would only occur in a context that makes the meaning of "language" clear. The question then is if it is computing terminology. Given our depth of coverage in that topic, I would suspect that we've gone a bit further than necessary. Delete. DAVilla 22:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not sum of parts. I had no idea what it was until I read the definition, even after looking at the words. — [ ric ] opiaterein — 16:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't you have known what it was in the correct context, or as special-purpose computer language? DAVilla 22:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - but move to the correct spelling special-purpose language (and add general-purpose language. SemperBlotto 16:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Searching b.g.c. seems to show a pretty even split. --Connel MacKenzie 10:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Question on recent edit: Why was the mention of AI deemed to be POV? I don't like LISP, but it seems to be the most oft-named language example of this, in other secondary sources (i.e. that I just saw, searching now, comparing the hyphenation.)  --Connel MacKenzie 10:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything wrong with it. That's was LISP was designed to do. It may have outgrown that, or more likely it may want to outgrow that, but it's still a good example as being well-known among relatively obscure languages. DAVilla 14:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * According to Lisp (programming language), "Lisp was originally created as a practical mathematical notation for computer programs, based on Alonzo Church's lambda calculus. It quickly became the favored programming language for artificial intelligence research." Now, your claim is a bit more valid than that quote suggests, because Lisp has evolved significantly, and since it was most popular in the AI world, you could argue that some elements of modern Lisp are borne of the needs of AI; but it's not a statement we can just make and wash our hands of. If you want to make an example sentence out of it, that's fine, since I don't think example sentences read as reflecting Wiktionary's own opinions, but it shouldn't go in the definition. —Ruakh TALK 16:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. This is just "special purpose" + "language". The reason it usually means "special-purpose computer language" is that special-purpose human languages are comparatively rare; but, as (for example) shows, they are possible, and people do use this term to describe them. —Ruakh TALK 23:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete meaning of term is simply compositional depending of the contextual meaning if its components. If kept, needs to reflect added sense(s) for professional languages (the first mentions in bgc) etc. DCDuring TALK 00:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No consensus: kept.—msh210 ℠ 18:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

special purpose language
Even special purpose is sum of parts, let alone this! Equinox ◑ 21:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If it had a Wikipedia page I could be persuaded that it is a set term, but AFAIK it's not. Delete. ---&gt; Tooironic 00:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Unsure, maybe adding some citations might help. The meaning isn't obvious, but perhaps in a sentence it becomes clear that a special purpose language is a language designed with a special purpose. Perhaps it would have failed last time with citations too. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per comments in previous discussion of those who said to delete. (I am only voting to delete because the previous decision to keep was only due to lack of consensus. If it were a "real" decision, then I'd have to raise a point of order against this nomination.) &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I hereby affirm my original comments and vote. DCDuring TALK 17:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and anyways I don't think of LISP as being special-purpose, certainly not in its current state of development. DAVilla 08:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Deleted. Equinox ◑ 13:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)