 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Someone needs to fix this entry. A language such as Visual Basic or Java is procedural because the elements of the language are used to create step-by-step procedures or instructions that the computer will follow. A non-procedural language is does not consist of steps or sequence, but represents a state. HTML, XML, SQL and Microsoft LINQ represent the category of non-procedural languages. An example from computer history would be RPG, the Report Program Generator. The name of this languange, RPG, gives one a hint as to the functioning of a non-procedural language. To be specific, the computer must process the non-procedural source into executable instructions. The non-procdural source does not specify how the computer is to produce the output. That is left to the author(s) of the language processor. For example, a variety of language processors share the responsibility to generate a dynamic web page from the various source files. Some of these source files may be procedural, i.e. JavaScript, and others may be non-procedural, e.g. XHTML.
As far as references are concerned, almost any up-to-date programming book will agree with me. One reference you can quote is Deitel and Deitel Visual Basic 2010 .Net How to Program.
Also, it is wrong to equate non-procedural with event-driven. Event-driven languages interact with underlying operating system support to respond efficiently to user generated events. The event-response model is extended to also respond to system generated events, such as an attempt to divide by zero, and custom user coded events. Custom events often extend the error handling features of a programming environment. The event handling code is almost always procedural. This is true for Java, C++, C#, Visual Basic and other event-driven languages. I don't know much about LISP and PROLOG so I can't talk about those languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.30.165 (talk) 06:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Amended
editI agree with what the above user has said, and amended the entry with what I hope is something more appropriate. Peter Tuffin (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)