Talk:Von Neumann programming languages

This article is awful

It makes no sense and I am fairly fluent with this subject, admittedly not von-neuman but computing in general... so it is saying that because von neuman first described logic or is one of the earliest thinkers in this field, basically all programming languages are "von-neuman" languages? It doesn't matter that von neman probably never sat at a keyboard?

I just assumed this the actual article didn't make sense

It's Very badly written, deliberate use of obtuse language not relevant to the field of computer science but more philosophy, "isomorphisms" etc rather than "similarities" .. this article is by a pretend intellectual trying to write articles for a dictionary (the one citation was a dictionary)?

DarkShroom (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

There is something not right here, This page: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Plankalk%C3%BCl says that Plankalkül is a Von Neumann programming language, while the current page sums Plankalkül with the non-Von Neumann programming language. Could someone with the proper knowledge about this make some modifications? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.66.197.185 (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Imperative = von Neumann, Functional = non-von Neumann-Languages?

Could you say as a general rule that functional languages are non-von Neumann-languages? For example, is Lisp a von Neumann language? If it is, is Haskell (which is purely functional, as opposed to Lisp) too?

I guess, I'm just asking for more well-known examples of non-von Neumann-Langs.

I was thinking the exact same thing as I was reading the article -- and the answer is a resounding "maybe" :)

Problem is in the definition of "Functional Language" - usually, all Lambda Calculus descendants are called "Functional".

John Backus says functional style is non-von Neumann, but he differentiates it from lambda calc:

"An FP system is founded on the use of a fixed set of combining forms called functional forms. These, plus simple definitions, are the only means of building new functions from existing ones; they use no variables or substitution rules, and they become the operations of an associated algebra of programs. All the functions of an FP system are of one type: they map objects into objects and always take a single argument.

In contrast, a lambda-calculus based system is founded on the use of the lambda expression, with an associated set of substitution rules for variables, for building new functions. The lambda expression (with its substitution rules) is capable of defining all possible computable functions of all possible types and of any number of arguments."

Apparently this is why only SOME functional languages are non-von Neumann. Fry-kun (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Original research?

"likely as a consequence of the extensive domination of the von Neumann computer architecture during the past 50 years" sounds very much as an original research to me. Also, the article lacks many citations. Ipsign (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, APL *IS* a von Neumann programming language.

APL exhibits all four isomorphisms the article gives between von Neumann programming languages and architectures. Why is it not considered to be a von Neumann language? --Brouhaha (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Software dev

15, 2023, 17:53 - «Undid revision 1165506901 by Alexander Davronov talk) was nonsense indeed»
15, 2023, 16:25 - «Reverted 1 edit by 62.121.132.130 talk): Rev WP:BKFIP»

@DVdm: I suggest we elaborate that this concept is part of the software development, not just some vague "computing". And yeah, Von Neumann Arch may be easily mapped to any other arch, meaning, the same pertain to the language. Sources are poor on that and buried beneath more complicated compiling and VM concepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Davronov (talk • contribs)

I agree this page needs improvements, but I don't think this is an improvement. Computing is an entirely fine term to use here. Computer Systems Engineering is a redirect to computer engineering (when computer science would arguably be the more pertinent field for a PL topic) and the term "computer system engineering" here has no real specificity beyond "computing"; if you mean "systems" in the sense of operating systems or systems engineering these both strike me as incorrect for a programming language theory topic. The two sentences on cross-compilation don't really make sense to me. At a minimum they're OR (though much of this article might be OR, there's still no need to add OR on the pile), but they also just don't seem relevant on a "first paragraph" level in a PL theory topic (and This idea is called cross-compilation implies that cross-compilation is specifically the concept of translating from von Neumann architectures to non-von Neumann architectures, which it isn't). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 23:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for you reply. I think "computing" is too broad. Though, the term "computer system engineering" is no less broad; ...if you mean "systems" in the sense... I mean "system" capable to compile or understand "von neumann language". This is as broad as incorrect you might thought. I think it's safe to close this discussion now cause too much WP:ORish things are happening over here. Unless of course we agree on some certain things. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)