Comparison of programming languages


Comparison of programming languages
Programming language comparisons
General comparison
Basic syntax
Basic instructions
Arrays
Associative arrays
String operations
String functions
List comprehension
Object-oriented programming
Object-oriented constructors
Database access
Database RDBMS

Evaluation strategy
List of "hello world" programs

ALGOL 58's influence on ALGOL 60
ALGOL 60: Comparisons with other languages
Comparison of ALGOL 68 and C++
ALGOL 68: Comparisons with other languages
Compatibility of C and C++
Comparison of Pascal and Borland Delphi
Comparison of Object Pascal and C
Comparison of Pascal and C
Comparison of Java and C++
Comparison of C# and Java
Comparison of C# and Visual Basic .NET
This box: view · talk · edit

Programming languages are used for controlling the behavior of a machine (often a computer). Like natural languages, programming languages conform to rules for syntax and semantics.

There are thousands of programming languages[1] and new ones are created every year. Few languages ever become sufficiently popular that they are used by more than a few people, but professional programmers can easily use dozens of different languages during their career.

Contents


General comparison

The following table compares general and technical information for a selection of commonly used programming languages. See the individual languages' articles for further information. Please note that the following table may be missing some information.

Language Intended use Paradigm(s) Standardized?
ActionScript 3.0 Application, Client-side, Web event-driven, imperative, object-oriented 1996, ECMA
Ada Application, Embedded, Realtime, System concurrent,[2] distributed,[3] generic,[4] imperative object-oriented[5], procedural,[6] 1983, ANSI, ISO, GOST 27831-88[7]
Aldor Highly domain-specific, Symbolic Computing imperative, functional, object-oriented No
ALGOL 58 Application imperative No
ALGOL 60 Application imperative 1960, IFIP WG 2.1, ISO[8]
ALGOL 68 Application concurrent, imperative 1968, IFIP WG 2.1, GOST 27974-88,[9]
Ateji PX Parallel Application object-oriented, pi calculus No
APL Application, Data processing array-oriented, tacit 1989, ISO
Assembly language General any, imperative No
AutoHotkey GUI automation(macros), Highly domain-specific imperative No
AutoIt GUI automation(macros), Highly domain-specific event-driven, imperative, procedural No
BASIC Application, Education imperative, procedural 1983, ANSI, ISO
BBj Application, Business, Web object-oriented, procedural No
BeanShell Application, Scripting functional, imperative, object-oriented, reflective In progress, JCP[10]
BLISS System procedural No
BlitzMax Application, Game imperative, object-oriented, procedural No
Boo Application No
C System[11] imperative, procedural 1989, ANSI C89, ISO C90/C99
C++ Application; System generic, imperative, object-oriented, procedural 2011, ISO
C# Application, Business, Client-side, General, Server-Side, Web functional,[12] generic, imperative, object-oriented, reflective 2000, ECMA, ISO[13]
Clarion General, Business, Web functional[14], imperative, object-oriented Unknown
Clean General functional, generic No
Clojure General concurrent, functional No
CLU General generic, imperative, object-oriented, procedural No
COBOL Application, Business imperative, object-oriented 2002 (ISO/IEC 1989)
Cobra Application, Business, General, Web functional, generic, imperative, object-oriented, reflective No
ColdFusion (CFML) Web Development object-oriented, procedural No
Common Lisp General functional, generic, imperative, object-oriented, reflective 1994, ANSI
Comal 80 Education imperative, procedural No
Crystal 1.0.0 Education functional, imperative, procedural No
Cython Application, General, Numerical Computing aspect-oriented, functional, imperative, object-oriented, reflective No
D Application; System generic, imperative, object-oriented No
Dylan Application functional, object-oriented No
Eiffel Application generic, imperative, object-oriented 2005, ECMA, ISO[15]
Erlang Application, Distributed, Telecom concurrent, distributed, functional No
Euphoria Application procedural No
Factor stack-oriented No
FP functional No
F# Application functional, generic, imperative, object-oriented No
Forth General imperative, stack-oriented 1994, ANSI
Fortran Application, Numerical Computing generic, imperative, object-oriented, procedural 1966, ANSI 66, ANSI 77, MIL-STD-1753, ISO 90, ISO 95, ISO 2003
G2 Application, Inference, Expert System common graphical development and runtime environment, event-driven, imperative, object-oriented No
Gambas Application event-driven , imperative, object-oriented No
Game Maker Language Application, Games event-driven, imperative, object-oriented No
Go Application; System concurrent, imperative No
Gosu Application, General, Scripting, System, Web generic, imperative, object-oriented, reflective No
GraphTalk Application logic-oriented, object-oriented No
Groovy Application, Web aspect-oriented, imperative, object-oriented In progress, JCP[16]
Harbour Application, Business, Data processing, General, Web declarative, functional, generic, imperative, object-oriented, procedural, reflective No
Haskell Application functional, generic, lazy evaluation 1998, Haskell 98[17]
HyperNext Application, Education event-driven, procedural, weakly typed No
IBM RPG Application, System imperative, procedural No
Io Application, Host-driven Scripting imperative, object-oriented No
J Data processing array-oriented, function-level, tacit No
JADE Application, Distributed imperative, object-oriented No
Java Application, Business, Client-side, General, Server-Side, Web generic, imperative, object-oriented, reflective Yes, De-facto standard through the Java Language Specification
JavaScript Client-side, Web functional, imperative, prototype-based, reflective 1997, ECMA
Joy Research functional, stack-oriented No
LabVIEW ("G") Application, Industrial instrumentation and automation dataflow, visual No
Lisp General functional Unknown
Logtalk Artificial intelligence, Application event-driven, logic, object-oriented, reflective No
Lua Application, Embedded scripting aspect-oriented, functional, imperative, object-oriented, procedural, reflective No[18]
Mathematica Highly domain-specific, Symbolic Computing functional, procedural No
MATLAB Highly domain-specific, Numerical Computing imperative, object-oriented, procedural No
Modula-2 Application; System generic, imperative 1996, ISO[19]
Modula-3 Application generic, imperative, object-oriented No
Oberon Application; System imperative, object-oriented No
Objective-C Application imperative, object-oriented, reflective No[20]
OCaml Application functional, generic, imperative, object-oriented No
Object Pascal (Delphi) Application, Business, Client-side, General, Server-Side, Web aspect-oriented,[21] event-driven, functional, generic, imperative, object-oriented, procedural, reflective No
Occam General concurrent, imperative, procedural, process-oriented No
Oxygene Application generic, imperative, object-oriented No
Oz Application, Distribution, Education concurrent, functional, imperative, logic, object-oriented No
Pascal Application, Education imperative, procedural 1983, ISO[22]
Pawn Embedded, Host-driven Scripting imperative No
Perl Application, Scripting, Text processing, Web functional, generic, imperative, object-oriented, procedural, reflective No
PHP Server-side, Web imperative, object-oriented,[23] procedural,[24] reflective No
PL/I Application imperative, object-oriented, procedural 1969
Plus Application, System development imperative, procedural No
Prolog Application, Artificial intelligence logic 1995, ISO
PureBasic Application procedural No
Python Application, General, Web, Scripting aspect-oriented, functional, imperative, object-oriented, reflective Yes, De-facto standard via Python Enhancement Proposals (PEP)s.
REALbasic Application Unknown
REBOL Distributed dialected, functional, imperative, object-oriented No
Ruby Application, Scripting, Web aspect-oriented, functional, imperative, object-oriented, reflective No
Rust Application, System concurrent, functional, generic, imperative, object-oriented, reflective No
S Application, Statistics functional, imperative, object-oriented, procedural No
S-Lang Application, Numerical, Scripting imperative, procedural No
Scala Application, Distributed, Web functional, generic, imperative, object-functional, object-oriented No
Scheme Education, General functional 1998, R6RS
Simula Education, General discrete event simulation, event-driven, imperative, multi-threaded (quasi-parallel) program execution, object-oriented 1968
Smalltalk Application, Education concurrent, declarative, event-driven, object-oriented, reflective 1998, ANSI
SNOBOL Text processing Unknown
Standard ML Application functional, generic, imperative 1997, SML '97[25]
Tcl Application, Scripting, Web event-driven, imperative, procedural, reflective No
Visual Basic Application, Education component-oriented, event-driven, imperative No
Visual Basic .NET Application, Education, Web event-driven, imperative, object-oriented No
Visual Prolog Application declarative, event-driven, functional, imperative, logical, object-oriented No
Windows PowerShell Administration functional, imperative, object-oriented, pipeline, reflective No
XL concept programming, imperative, object-oriented No
Language Intended use Paradigm(s) Standardized?

Type systems

Brief Definitions

  • Compatibility among composite types is how functions are applied to data typed similarly to its intended type. Name-based compatibility means that functions work only on data of its intended type and declared subtypes. Property-based compatibility means that functions work on any data that has the same properties as its intended type.
  • Type checking is how type errors are checked. Static checking occurs at compile-time. Dynamic checking occurs at run-time.
Language Type strength Type safety Expression of types Compatibility among composite types Type checking
ActionScript 3.0 strong safe implicit with optional explicit typing static
Ada strong safe[TS 1] explicit name-based partially dynamic[TS 2]
Aldor strong unsafe implicit static
ALGOL 58 strong safe explicit static
ALGOL 60 strong safe explicit static
ALGOL 68 strong safe explicit property-based static
APL strong safe dynamic
AutoHotkey none
Ateji PX strong safe explicit name-based static
BASIC varies by dialect
BLISS none n/a n/a n/a n/a
BeanShell strong safe name-based dynamic
Boo strong safe implicit with optional explicit typing static with optional dynamic typing
C strong unsafe explicit name-based static
C++ (ISO/IEC 14882) strong unsafe explicit name-based static[TS 3]
C# strong safe[TS 4] explicit name-based static[TS 5]
Clean strong safe implicit static
Clojure strong safe implicit with optional explicit typing dynamic
COBOL strong static
ColdFusion(CFML) strong safe implicit dynamic
Common Lisp strong safe implicit with optional explicit typing dynamic
Curl strong safe name-based
Cython strong safe implicit with optional explicit typing name-based (extension types) and property-based (Python) dynamic with optional static typing
D strong unsafe[TS 6] explicit name-based static
Dylan strong safe dynamic
Eiffel strong safe name-based static
Erlang strong safe implicit dynamic
F# strong safe implicit name-based static
Forth none n/a n/a n/a n/a
Fortran strong safe explicit name-based static
Gambas strong safe explicit name-based
Go[26] strong safe implicit with optional explicit typing property-based static
Gosu strong safe partially implicit (local type inference) name-based (subclassing) and property-based (structural) static
GraphTalk weak
Groovy strong safe implicit with optional explicit typing dynamic
Harbour strong safe implicit with optional explicit typing dynamic
Haskell strong safe implicit with optional explicit typing property-based static
Io strong dynamic
J strong safe dynamic
Java strong safe[27] explicit name-based static
JavaScript weak implicit dynamic
Joy strong safe dynamic
Lua weak safe implicit dynamic
Mathematica strong dynamic
MATLAB M-code dynamic
Modula-2 strong unsafe[TS 6] explicit name-based static
Modula-3 strong unsafe[TS 6] explicit property-based static
Oberon strong safe explicit name-based static and partially dynamic[TS 7]
Objective-C weak safe explicit name-based (subclassing) and property-based (protocols) dynamic with optional static typing[28]
OCaml strong safe implicit with optional explicit typing property-based static
Object Pascal (Delphi) strong safe explicit name-based static
Oxygene strong unsafe implicit static
Oz strong safe implicit property-based dynamic
Pascal strong unsafe[TS 6] explicit name-based static
Perl 5 weak implicit dynamic
Perl 6 partially implicit[TS 8] dynamic with optional static typing
PHP weak implicit dynamic
Plus strong safe explicit property-based static, dynamic (optional)
Prolog strong dynamic
Pure dynamic
Python strong safe implicit property-based dynamic
REBOL strong safe implicit dynamic
Ruby strong safe implicit property-based dynamic
Rust strong safe implicit with optional explicit typing static with optional dynamic typing
S strong dynamic
S-Lang strong safe implicit dynamic
Scala strong safe partially implicit (local type inference) name-based (subclassing) and property-based (structural) static
Scheme strong implicit dynamic (latent)
Simula strong safe static[TS 9]
Smalltalk strong safe implicit dynamic
Standard ML strong safe implicit with optional explicit typing property-based static
Tcl dynamic
Visual Basic strong safe implicit with optional explicit typing name-based static
Visual Basic .NET strong unsafe[TS 6] explicit static
Visual Prolog strong safe partially implicit name-based static
Windows PowerShell strong safe implicit dynamic
XL strong safe name-based static
Language Type strength Type safety Expression of types Compatibility among composite types Type checking
  1. ^ Unsafe operations are well isolated by a "Unchecked_" prefix.
  2. ^ Dynamic type checking is used when type safety can not be determined staticly i.e. for tagged types (type extension / inheritance), numeric ranges and array bounds.
  3. ^ with optional dynamic type casting (see dynamic cast)
  4. ^ Safe, but supports unsafe code through an explicit declaration
  5. ^ with optional dynamic type (see dynamic member lookup)
  6. ^ a b c d e It is almost safe, unsafe features are not commonly used.
  7. ^ dynamic checking of type extensions i.e. inherited types
  8. ^ explicit for static types
  9. ^ optional for formal and virtual procedures

Failsafe I/O and system calls

Most programming languages will print an error message and/or throw an exception if an input/output operation or other system call (e.g., chmod, kill) fails, unless the programmer has explicitly arranged for different handling of these events. Thus, these languages fail safely in this regard.

Some (mostly older) languages require that the programmer explicitly add checks for these kinds of errors. It is common for novice programmers to forget to add these checks, and even experts occasionally do so—these omissions can lead to erroneous behavior.

Language Failsafe I/O
Ada Yes (exceptions)
AutoHotkey No (global ErrorLevel must be explicitly checked)
C No[FSIO 1]
C++ No[FSIO 2]
C# Yes
Common Lisp Yes
D Yes[citation needed]
Erlang Yes
Gosu Yes
Harbour Yes
Haskell Yes
Java Yes
Lua No (some functions do not warn or throw exceptions)
Mathematica Unknown
Object Pascal (Delphi) Some
Objective-C Yes (exceptions)
OCaml Yes (exceptions)
Perl No[FSIO 3]
PHP Yes
Python Yes
REBOL Yes
Ruby Yes
Rust Yes
S Unknown
Scala Yes[citation needed]
Standard ML Yes[citation needed]
Tcl Yes
Visual Basic Yes
Visual Prolog Yes
Language Failsafe I/O
  1. ^ gcc can warn on unchecked error status. Newer versions of Visual Studio usually throw exceptions on failed I/O when using stdio.
  2. ^ g++ can warn on unchecked error status. Newer versions of Visual Studio usually throw exceptions on failed I/O when using stdio.
  3. ^ Considerable error checking can be enabled optionally, but by default Perl is not failsafe.

Expressiveness

Language Statements ratio[29] Lines ratio[30]
C 1 1
C++ 2.5 1
Fortran 2 0.8
Java 2.5 1.5
Perl 6 6
Smalltalk 6 6.25
Python 6.5

The literature on programming languages contains an abundance of informal claims about their relative expressive power, but there is no framework for formalizing such statements nor for deriving interesting consequences.[31] This table provides two measures of expressiveness from two different sources. An additional measure of expressiveness, in GZip bytes, can be found on the Computer Language Benchmarks Game.[32]


Benchmarks

Benchmarks are designed to mimic a particular type of workload on a component or system. The computer programs used for compiling some of the benchmark data in this section may not have been fully optimized, and the relevance of the data is disputed. The most accurate benchmarks are those that are customized to your particular situation. Other people's benchmark data may have some value to others, but proper interpretation brings many challenges. See this page about flawed benchmarks and comparisons. The Computer Language Benchmarks Game site contains a large number of micro-benchmarks of reader-contributed code snippets, with an interface that generates various charts and tables comparing specific programming languages and types of tests.

Time line of specific language comparisons

See also

References

  1. ^ As of May 2006 Diarmuid Pigott's Encyclopedia of Computer Languages hosted at Murdoch University, Australia lists 8512 computer languages.
  2. ^ Ada Reference Manual, ISO/IEC 8652:2005(E) Ed. 3, Section 9: Tasks and Synchronization
  3. ^ Ada Reference Manual, ISO/IEC 8652:2005(E) Ed. 3 Annex E: Distributed Systems
  4. ^ Ada Reference Manual, ISO/IEC 8652:2005(E) Ed. 3, Section 12: Generic Units
  5. ^ Ada Reference Manual, ISO/IEC 8652:2005(E) Ed. 3, 3.9 Tagged Types and Type Extensions
  6. ^ Ada Reference Manual, ISO/IEC 8652:2005(E) Ed. 3, Section 6: Subprograms
  7. ^ Vak.ru
  8. ^ ISO 1538:1984
  9. ^ Vak.ru
  10. ^ JSR 274
  11. ^ CM.bell-labs.com
  12. ^ Codeproject.com
  13. ^ ECMA-334; ISO/IEC 23270:2006
  14. ^ Softvelocity.com
  15. ^ ECMA-367; ISO/IEC 25436:2006
  16. ^ JSR 241
  17. ^ "The Haskell 98 Language Report". http://www.haskell.org/onlinereport/. Retrieved 2009-03-07.  Most Haskell implementations extend the Haskell 98 standard.
  18. ^ Version releases are accompanied with a definitive Lua Reference Manual showing full syntax and semantics; a reference implementation, and a test suite. These are used to generate other Lua VM implementations and compilers such as Kahlua and LLVM-Lua.
  19. ^ ISO/IEC 10514-1:1996
  20. ^ GCC.GNU.org
  21. ^ Cirrus: Aspect-oriented programming in Delphi Prism
  22. ^ ISO 7185
  23. ^ PHP Manual, Chapter 19. Classes and Objects (PHP 5),
  24. ^ PHP Manual, Chapter 17. Functions
  25. ^ SMLNJ.org
  26. ^ The Go Programming Language Specification
  27. ^ Sheng Liang, Gilad Bracha. Dynamic class loading in the Java virtual machine. Volume 33, Issue 10 of ACM SIGPLAN Notices, October 1998.
  28. ^ Developer.apple.com
  29. ^ Data from Code Complete. The Statements ratio column "shows typical ratios of source statements in several high-level languages to the equivalent code in C. A higher ratio means that each line of code in the language listed accomplishes more than does each line of code in C.
  30. ^ The ratio of line count tests won by each language to the number won by C when using the Compare to feature at Shootout.alioth.debian.org. Last updated May, 2006. C gcc was used for C, C++ g++ was used for C++, FORTRAN G95 was used for FORTRAN, Java JDK Server was used for Java, and Smalltalk GST was used for Smalltalk.
  31. ^ From On the Expressive Power of Programming Languages, Matthias Felleisen, ESOP '90 3rd European Symposium on Programming.
  32. ^ Computer Language Benchmarks Game ranking

Further reading

  • Cezzar, Ruknet. A Guide to Programming Languages: Overview and Comparison. ISBN 978-0890068120. 

External links


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Look at other dictionaries: