Talk:Expression-oriented programming language

Restoring Meaning

Cybercobra, Thank you for your attention to my contribution. I want to discuss with you how to restore the meaning of my contributions in a way that satisfies wikipedia's policies. You made two edits that altered the meaning of what I wrote:

1. 2010-04-23T21:58:11 (→Criticism: we're not quoting anyone) removed the words "also exhibits paranoia, but"
2. 2010-04-24T16:48:51 (→Canonical Objection: NPOV) removed the words "Here is an example of one phrasal of the allegation:" and un-block-quoted a passage

1. The first of those edits eliminates the connection I drew between Ada/Java and Python. How do you suggest I restore the emphasis on that connection?
2. The second edit takes an example of something that is of low truth value, and presents it in the main article text as if it was of high truth value, thus dis-informing the reader. How do you suggest I return the article to a state of high truth value?

Thanks, Keith Cascio (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Fixed.
2. Change the phrasing such that it doesn't make the argument but instead describes/explains it. That'll be more straightforward & neutral anyway.

--Cybercobra (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

2.  I understand and appreciate your advice to change the phrasing. But since the result of such a rephrasal would be redundant, I deleted what once was the block quote, i.e. "Expression-orientation can be confusing...this branch is never executed...often confused with...". The article is fine without it. --Keith Cascio (talk) 004:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

expression-oriented and expression-based PL

Is there a reason that Icon, Rebol and Curl are not mentioned ?

G. Robert Shiplett 18:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, is there a reason that PHP is mentioned? Although I see a reference to PHP manual, I can't figure out, why it is considered expression-oriented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dluciv (talk • contribs) 07:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Article problems!

1. This article does not cite any sources about the phrase "expression-oriented language", nor of the definition of this phrase given, nor even whether any of the examples given actually are expression-oriented languages.

2. The "criticism and prevention" section does not source independent criticism, nor any sources that are specifically criticizing expression-oriented languages, nor does it cite whether any of the mentioned languages are expression oriented. None of the existing sources 1 to 5 mention the subject of expression oriented languages. Source 1 is a programming style guide advising against the deliberate use of assignment expressions, while the criticism it's tagged inline to is about programming mistakes. Sources 2 to 4 are language reference material. Source 5 is an argument *for* the inclusion of assignment expressions in languages! But it's still unclear whether any of this can actually be attributed specifically to expression oriented languages.

3. The entire section of examples is unsourced, in addition to its existing problems of needing expansion.

I reccomend that the "criticism and prevention" section should me marked with the Synthesis tag until it has a reliable source that specifically mentions expression-oriented languages and makes a criticism of them or their features. Any sources that may only criticize one specific language should be reviewed as to whether they are relevant to just that language, or the wider topic that this article is about.

Additionally, the "examples" section should be marked with the Refimprove tag until all items listed are actually cited in reliable sources that actually name them as expression-oriented languages.

The entire article should also likely be marked with a Notability tag until the criticisms section is improved, or a reliably sourced section is added that provides better coverage of the subject beyond defining it and giving examples.

I'm not an experienced wikipedia editor, but I'll give it a shot to see if I can introduce these tags myself! 2601:405:8403:BBC0:B43E:4404:5D71:4CE (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Algol 68 Citation

This article mentions Algol 68 and expression oriented languages; can somebody access the PDF and determine if it's a good source to mark Algol 68 as an espression-oriented language? I'll keep looking for a publicly available source in the meantime.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0096055179900067 2601:405:8403:BBC0:B43E:4404:5D71:4CE (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)