Downloads & Free Reading Options - Results

In my talk I will report on the work in progress. The initial idea of the project was to test available compilers of C-like languages. Our plan is the following: Choose a reasonable subset of the language to be tested. Formalize the semantics of the sub-language in AsmL. Produce tons of different programs. Using the AsmL Test tool, build test sequences for all these programs to check the correctness of the executable binary produced by the compiler. We started with a very simple fragment of the language (if, while, break, goto, simple function call). The next reasonable step is to add exceptions handling, arithmetical expressions, classes. (Joint work with Andrey Novikov.) ©2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Tri 2 – 2016/2017

Tri 2 – 2016/2017

From the bitsavers.org collection, a scanned-in computer-related document. apple :: mac :: a ux :: aux 3.0 :: AUX 3.0 Programming Languages and Tools Volume 2 1992

From the bitsavers.org collection, a scanned-in computer-related document. apple :: mac :: a ux :: aux 3.0 :: AUX 3.0 Programming Languages and Tools Volume 2 1992

Throughout the 1990s, Richard Reid of Michigan State University maintained a list showing the first programming language used in introductory programming courses taken by computer science and information systems majors; it was updated for several years afterwards by Frances Van Scoy of West Virginia University. However, it has been 5 years since the last Reid List was released. An updated list was compiled revealing the most popular programming languages. The resultant correspondence with faculty members at many of the 410 Reid List colleges and universities indicates several trends, some of which are contradictory, as well as the reasons for the language choices of the participating schools. We present several conclusions from our findings.

Programming languages are engineered languages that allow to instruct a machine and share algorithmic information; they have a great influence on the society since they underlie almost every information technology artefact, and they are at the core of the current explosion of software technology. The history of programming languages is marked by innovations, diversifications, lateral transfers and social influences; moreover, it represents an intermediate case study between the evolution of human languages and the evolution of technology. In this paper we study the application of the Darwinian explanation to the programming languages evolution by discussing to what extent the evolutionary mechanisms distinctive of biology can be applied to this area. We show that a number of evolutionary building blocks can be recognised in the realm of computer languages, but we also identify critical issues. Far from being crystal clear, this fine-grained study shows to be a useful tool to assess recent results about programming languages phylogenies. Finally, we show that rich evolutionary patterns, such as co-evolution, macro-evolutionary trends, niche construction and exaptation, can be effectively applied to programming languages and provide for interesting explanatory tools.

Programming languages are engineered languages that allow to instruct a machine and share algorithmic information; they have a great influence on the society since they underlie almost every information technology artefact, and they are at the core of the current explosion of software technology. The history of programming languages is marked by innovations, diversifications, lateral transfers and social influences; moreover, it represents an intermediate case study between the evolution of human languages and the evolution of technology. In this paper we study the application of the Darwinian explanation to the programming languages evolution by discussing to what extent the evolutionary mechanisms distinctive of biology can be applied to this area. We show that a number of evolutionary building blocks can be recognised in the realm of computer languages, but we also identify critical issues. Far from being crystal clear, this fine-grained study shows to be a useful tool to assess recent results about programming languages phylogenies. Finally, we show that rich evolutionary patterns, such as co-evolution, macro-evolutionary trends, niche construction and exaptation, can be effectively applied to programming languages and provide for interesting explanatory tools.

ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 1989: Volume 11 , Issue Index. Digitized from IA1534625-06 . Previous issue: sim_acm-transactions-on-programming-languages-and-systems_1988-10_10_4 . Next issue: sim_acm-transactions-on-programming-languages-and-systems_1989-01_11_1 .

ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 1989: Volume 11 , Issue Index. Digitized from IA1534625-06 . Previous issue: sim_acm-transactions-on-programming-languages-and-systems_1988-10_10_4 . Next issue: sim_acm-transactions-on-programming-languages-and-systems_1989-01_11_1 .

Collection of Programming Languages. Including C++, C Turbo, SQL and Many More

Available from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va

THE FIRST TASK OF THE HOL Working Group was to formulate a set of requirements consistent with the levies of the Military Departments. This effort proceeded as follows: While there is no intent to replace the already standard COBOL and FORTRAN in their field of application, initially there was no reason to unnecessarily restrict the requirements to only those areas such as real-time applications or weapons systems where the major problems are, although this area must receive emphasis. Therefore, requirements were solicited from as broad a base as possible, to be prioritized later as required. Further, inquiries were not restricted to those programs presently using high order languages, rather, a major thrust of the effort is to provide HOL's to meet the requirements of those who are now constrained to use an assembly language for lack of a suitable HOL. The results of four months of such input were put together in a more concrete form, one which could then pretend to represent a fairly complete set of requirements, although still a tentative set. This document was called the 'woodenman,' and it too was distributed widely. It provided a more rigorous framework for specific comment. On the basis of all inputs and the official responses from each of the Military Departments, a more complete set of requirements has evolved and is presented here as a 'tinman.' This document represents a set of requirements for high order computer programming language consistent with the input from the Military Services.

THE FIRST TASK OF THE HOL Working Group was to formulate a set of requirements consistent with the levies of the Military Departments. This effort proceeded as follows: While there is no intent to replace the already standard COBOL and FORTRAN in their field of application, initially there was no reason to unnecessarily restrict the requirements to only those areas such as real-time applications or weapons systems where the major problems are, although this area must receive emphasis. Therefore, requirements were solicited from as broad a base as possible, to be prioritized later as required. Further, inquiries were not restricted to those programs presently using high order languages, rather, a major thrust of the effort is to provide HOL's to meet the requirements of those who are now constrained to use an assembly language for lack of a suitable HOL. The results of four months of such input were put together in a more concrete form, one which could then pretend to represent a fairly complete set of requirements, although still a tentative set. This document was called the 'woodenman,' and it too was distributed widely. It provided a more rigorous framework for specific comment. On the basis of all inputs and the official responses from each of the Military Departments, a more complete set of requirements has evolved and is presented here as a 'tinman.' This document represents a set of requirements for high order computer programming language consistent with the input from the Military Services.

The issue of model validation is critical in the formulation and interpretation of mathematical programming models, yet this problem is largely ignored by contemporary modeling languages and the systems they support. This research advanced modeling languages for mathematical programming by providing a formalism and defining a language for specifying a dimensional complement, called typing, to the algebraic representation of models. Typing is a formal specification used to determine automatically whether the algebraic model is well-formed in the sense that its objective junction and constraints are composed of homogeneous components and that operations junction and constraints are composed of homogeneous components and that operations performed using indices are meaningful. A provision is made for the definition of dimensional axioms that can be applied automatically to resolve dimensional differences. The addiction of formal typing to mathematical programming models also yields a powerful abstraction mechanism for integrated modeling.

Programming multiprocessor architectures is a critical research issue. An overview is given of the various approaches to programming these architectures that are currently being explored. It is argued that two of these approaches, interactive programming environments and functional parallel languages, are particularly attractive since they remove much of the burden of exploiting parallel architectures from the user. Also described is recent work by the author in the design of parallel languages. Research on languages for both shared and nonshared memory multiprocessors is described, as well as the relations of this work to other current language research projects.

Video content can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0BAd8tPlDqFvDYBemHcQPQ/

Video content can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0BAd8tPlDqFvDYBemHcQPQ/

Video content can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0BAd8tPlDqFvDYBemHcQPQ/

In order to promote public education and public safety, equal justice for all, a better informed citizenry, the rule of law, world trade and world peace, this legal document is hereby made available on a noncommercial basis, as it is the right of all humans to know and speak the laws that govern them. (For more information: 12 Tables of Code ) Name of Standards Organization: Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) Division Name: Electronics and Information Technology Section Name: Software and System Engineering (LITD 14) Designator of Legally Binding Document: IS 10681 Title of Legally Binding Document: Programming languages - COBOL Number of Amendments: Equivalence: ISO 1989 Superceding: Superceded by: LEGALLY BINDING DOCUMENT Step Out From the Old to the New --Jawaharlal Nehru Invent a new India using knowledge. --Satyanarayan Gangaram Pitroda

In non-strict functional languages, a data structure may be read before all its components are written, and a function may return a value before finishing all its computation or even before all its arguments have been evaluated. Such flexibility gives expressive power to the programmer, but makes life difficult for the compiler because it may not be possible to totally order instructions at compile time; the correct order can vary dramatically with the input data. Presently, compiler for non-strict languages rely on lazy evaluation, in which a subexpression is not evaluated until known (at run time) to contribute to the final answer. By scheduling each subexpression separately, lazy evaluation automatically deals with the varying orderings required by non- strictness, but at the same time incurs a great deal of overhead. Recent research has employed strictness analysis and/or annotations to make more scheduling decisions at compile time, and thereby reduce the overhead, but because these techniques seek to retain laziness, they are limited in effectiveness. The author discusses his strategy in the context of both sequential implementations and parallel implementations where the object code is partially sequentialized.

xx, 844 p. : 24 cm

xx, 844 p. : 24 cm

THE FIRST TASK OF THE HOL Working Group was to formulate a set of requirements consistent with the levies of the Military Departments. This effort proceeded as follows: While there is no intent to replace the already standard COBOL and FORTRAN in their field of application, initially there was no reason to unnecessarily restrict the requirements to only those areas such as real-time applications or weapons systems where the major problems are, although this area must receive emphasis. Therefore, requirements were solicited from as broad a base as possible, to be prioritized later as required. Further, inquiries were not restricted to those programs presently using high order languages, rather, a major thrust of the effort is to provide HOL's to meet the requirements of those who are now constrained to use an assembly language for lack of a suitable HOL. The results of four months of such input were put together in a more concrete form, one which could then pretend to represent a fairly complete set of requirements, although still a tentative set. This document was called the 'woodenman,' and it too was distributed widely. It provided a more rigorous framework for specific comment. On the basis of all inputs and the official responses from each of the Military Departments, a more complete set of requirements has evolved and is presented here as a 'tinman.' This document represents a set of requirements for high order computer programming language consistent with the input from the Military Services.

THE FIRST TASK OF THE HOL Working Group was to formulate a set of requirements consistent with the levies of the Military Departments. This effort proceeded as follows: While there is no intent to replace the already standard COBOL and FORTRAN in their field of application, initially there was no reason to unnecessarily restrict the requirements to only those areas such as real-time applications or weapons systems where the major problems are, although this area must receive emphasis. Therefore, requirements were solicited from as broad a base as possible, to be prioritized later as required. Further, inquiries were not restricted to those programs presently using high order languages, rather, a major thrust of the effort is to provide HOL's to meet the requirements of those who are now constrained to use an assembly language for lack of a suitable HOL. The results of four months of such input were put together in a more concrete form, one which could then pretend to represent a fairly complete set of requirements, although still a tentative set. This document was called the 'woodenman,' and it too was distributed widely. It provided a more rigorous framework for specific comment. On the basis of all inputs and the official responses from each of the Military Departments, a more complete set of requirements has evolved and is presented here as a 'tinman.' This document represents a set of requirements for high order computer programming language consistent with the input from the Military Services.

As the complexity of machines and architectures has increased, performance tuning has become more challenging, leading to the failure of general compilers to generate the best possible optimized code. Expert performance programmers can often hand-write code that outperforms compiler-optimized low-level code by an order of magnitude. At the same time, the complexity of programs has also increased, with modern programs built on a variety of abstraction layers to manage complexity, yet these layers hinder efforts at optimization. In fact, it is common to lose one or two additional orders of magnitude in performance when going from a low-level language such as Fortran or C to a high-level language like Python, Ruby, or Matlab.

As the complexity of machines and architectures has increased, performance tuning has become more challenging, leading to the failure of general compilers to generate the best possible optimized code. Expert performance programmers can often hand-write code that outperforms compiler-optimized low-level code by an order of magnitude. At the same time, the complexity of programs has also increased, with modern programs built on a variety of abstraction layers to manage complexity, yet these layers hinder efforts at optimization. In fact, it is common to lose one or two additional orders of magnitude in performance when going from a low-level language such as Fortran or C to a high-level language like Python, Ruby, or Matlab.

As the complexity of machines and architectures has increased, performance tuning has become more challenging, leading to the failure of general compilers to generate the best possible optimized code. Expert performance programmers can often hand-write code that outperforms compiler-optimized low-level code by an order of magnitude. At the same time, the complexity of programs has also increased, with modern programs built on a variety of abstraction layers to manage complexity, yet these layers hinder efforts at optimization. In fact, it is common to lose one or two additional orders of magnitude in performance when going from a low-level language such as Fortran or C to a high-level language like Python, Ruby, or Matlab.

ADA150771

ADA150771

ADA150771

ADA150771

Panel: ? Aimee Knight ? Joe Eames ? AJ ONeal Special Guests: Jeremy Fairbank In this episode, the JavaScript Jabber panel talks to Jeremy Fairbank about his talk Practical Functional Programming . Jeremy is a remote software developer and consultant for Test Double . They talk about what Test Double is and what they do there and the 6 things he touched on in his talk, such as hard to follow code, function composition, and mutable vs immutable data. They also touch on the theory of unit testing, if functional programming is the solution, and more! In particular, we dive pretty deep on: ? Jeremy intro ? Works for Test Double ? What he means by “remote” ? What is Test Double? ? They believe software is broken and they are there to fix it ? His talk - Practical Functional Programming ? The 6 things he talked about in his talk ? Practical aspects that any software engineer is going to deal with ? Purity and the side effects of programming in general ? Hard to follow code ? Imperative VS declarative code ? Code breaking unexpectedly ? Mutable data VS immutable data ? The idea of too much code ? Combining multiple functions together to make more complex functions ? Function composition ? Elm , Elixir , and F# ? Pipe operator ? Scary to refactor code ? Static types ? The idea of null ? The theory of unit testing ? Is functional programming the solution? ? His approach from the talk ? And much, much more! Links: ? Test Double ? His talk - Practical Functional Programming ? Elm ? Elixir ? F# ? @elpapapollo ? jeremyfairbank.com ? Jeremy’s GitHub ? Jeremy’s YouTube Sponsors ? Kendo UI ? Sentry ? Digital Ocean Picks: Aimee ? American Dollar ? Force with lease AJ ? Superfight Joe ? The 2018 Web Developer Roadmap by Brandon Morelli ? Svelte Jeremy ? Programming Elm ? The Secrets of Consulting by Gerald M. Weinberg ? Connect.Tech

Panel: ? Aimee Knight ? Joe Eames ? AJ ONeal Special Guests: Jeremy Fairbank In this episode, the JavaScript Jabber panel talks to Jeremy Fairbank about his talk Practical Functional Programming . Jeremy is a remote software developer and consultant for Test Double . They talk about what Test Double is and what they do there and the 6 things he touched on in his talk, such as hard to follow code, function composition, and mutable vs immutable data. They also touch on the theory of unit testing, if functional programming is the solution, and more! In particular, we dive pretty deep on: ? Jeremy intro ? Works for Test Double ? What he means by “remote” ? What is Test Double? ? They believe software is broken and they are there to fix it ? His talk - Practical Functional Programming ? The 6 things he talked about in his talk ? Practical aspects that any software engineer is going to deal with ? Purity and the side effects of programming in general ? Hard to follow code ? Imperative VS declarative code ? Code breaking unexpectedly ? Mutable data VS immutable data ? The idea of too much code ? Combining multiple functions together to make more complex functions ? Function composition ? Elm , Elixir , and F# ? Pipe operator ? Scary to refactor code ? Static types ? The idea of null ? The theory of unit testing ? Is functional programming the solution? ? His approach from the talk ? And much, much more! Links: ? Test Double ? His talk - Practical Functional Programming ? Elm ? Elixir ? F# ? @elpapapollo ? jeremyfairbank.com ? Jeremy’s GitHub ? Jeremy’s YouTube Sponsors ? Kendo UI ? Sentry ? Digital Ocean Picks: Aimee ? American Dollar ? Force with lease AJ ? Superfight Joe ? The 2018 Web Developer Roadmap by Brandon Morelli ? Svelte Jeremy ? Programming Elm ? The Secrets of Consulting by Gerald M. Weinberg ? Connect.Tech

xx, 401 p. : 23 cm

Programming Languages 2019 Kotlin TypeScript Rust WebAssembly

Perma.cc archive of https://www.veracode.com/blog/2013/04/the-history-of-programming-languages-infographic created on 2020-09-23 00:28:27+00:00.

Perma.cc archive of https://www.veracode.com/blog/2013/04/the-history-of-programming-languages-infographic created on 2020-09-23 00:28:27+00:00.

Perma.cc archive of https://www.veracode.com/blog/2013/04/the-history-of-programming-languages-infographic created on 2020-09-23 00:28:27+00:00.

Perma.cc archive of https://www.veracode.com/blog/2013/04/the-history-of-programming-languages-infographic created on 2020-09-23 00:28:27+00:00.

Perma.cc archive of https://www.veracode.com/blog/2013/04/the-history-of-programming-languages-infographic created on 2020-09-23 00:28:27+00:00.

Perma.cc archive of https://www.veracode.com/blog/2013/04/the-history-of-programming-languages-infographic created on 2020-09-23 00:28:27+00:00.

Perma.cc archive of https://www.veracode.com/blog/2013/04/the-history-of-programming-languages-infographic created on 2020-09-23 00:28:27+00:00.

Perma.cc archive of https://www.veracode.com/blog/2013/04/the-history-of-programming-languages-infographic created on 2020-09-23 00:28:27+00:00.

Perma.cc archive of https://www.veracode.com/blog/2013/04/the-history-of-programming-languages-infographic created on 2020-09-23 00:28:27+00:00.

From the bitsavers.org collection, a scanned-in computer-related document. apple :: mac :: a ux :: aux 1.0 :: AUX 1.0 Programming Languages and Tools Volume 1 1987

From the bitsavers.org collection, a scanned-in computer-related document. apple :: mac :: a ux :: aux 1.0 :: AUX 1.0 Programming Languages and Tools Volume 1 1987

From the bitsavers.org collection, a scanned-in computer-related document. apple :: mac :: a ux :: aux 1.0 :: AUX 1.0 Programming Languages and Tools Volume 1 1987

We present the approach underlying a course on "Domain-Specific Languages of Mathematics", currently being developed at Chalmers in response to difficulties faced by third-year students in learning and applying classical mathematics (mainly real and complex analysis). The main idea is to encourage the students to approach mathematical domains from a functional programming perspective: to identify the main functions and types involved and, when necessary, to introduce new abstractions; to give calculational proofs; to pay attention to the syntax of the mathematical expressions; and, finally, to organise the resulting functions and types in domain-specific languages.

xxiii, 374 p. : 24 cm +