Talk:Computer program/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Caleb Stanford (talk · contribs) 21:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

The prose is well-written and the article surveys a lot of useful information. I haven't read this article before. This is also my first GA review so corrections/feedback appreciated. The main thing that would improve the article in my opinion is better organization, and clarity with respect to the different dimensions of computer programs considered. I will give some examples and details below.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
The article is well-sourced throughout but the chosen reference style repeats the same references many times. For an article with this pattern of references, I would personally appreciate a different citation style that lists each reference only once: either the page number style (like [1]:25-32) or the short form style (Wilson, p. 394 with the full citation included only once in a separate list: Wilson, Leslie B. (2001). Comparative Programming Languages, Third Edition.). The actual references listed contain a relatively small number of books but that is not easily apparent from reading the reference list.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Some key concepts are not covered, such as the semantics of computer programs. Also, coverage is difficult to assess due to article organization (more comments on organization below)
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
The article seems to reflect an engineering and systems viewpoint and does not include a perspective from programming languages and programming languages theory. Viewpoints are generally listed fairly but I am not sure fair/due wait is given to each sub-concept and many concepts are missing. As with coverage, this is a bit hard to tell due to the organization of the article (more comments below). One particular example that I doubt is neutral is the delineation of a "5th generation programming language".
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No problem here.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Media/illustrations look great!
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
See comments below.

Although it isn't directly one of the GA criteria listed above, my biggest concern with the article overall is its organization. Reading through the article, I don't get a clear sense of which sections should contain which information, and I don't know that the current section choices reflect a clarity of thought with respect to different aspects or features of computer programs.

Specific comments, by section. These thoughts are mostly unedited, please let me know if any comments are unclear:

Hello world program: missing some context on what a hello world program is (maybe a brief history) and how it relates to the key concept of a computer program. I'm not sure why the section is discussing concepts of variable declaration and use; that's specific PL syntax stuff, what we want to explain here is what a computer program is and how a Hello World program is used as an example of one to illustrate program syntax.
The History section is generally very good, but the last subsection "Programming environment" seems out of place as written (also, lacks references). Is this intended to discuss a development in the history of programs to more advanced GUIs and IDEs? Or does this belong in a different place? Also what is the criteria for what programs are going to be listed in the History section, e.g. why are we not include a COBOL program, a C program, a C++ program, etc?
The programming language section includes a view of PLs by "generation", which in my experience is not a common way to understand programming languages today and reads as obsolete. In particular, first through fourth generation programming languages seem like perfectly reasonable delineations, but the Fifth-generation programming language is a dubious concept that I don't think makes sense from a programming languages standpoint. This delineation needs some qualification. For example, who proposed this classification and when was it proposed, and how widely was it accepted?
Why does the PL section include "Imperative Languages" and "Declarative languages" but "Object-oriented programming" is in a different place?

I would suggest a different organization with a section on "programming paradigms", including imperative, declarative, OOP, Functional, statically typed, dynamically typed, and many other paradigms that are missing or not discussed currently.
It could make sense for PL to be a separate section from programming paradigms.

The article is missing a discussion of programming language syntax and semantics. The word ["semantics"](Semantics (computer science)) does not appear in the article.
The section "Computer programming" also lacks some clarity on what should be included here. Why is the "waterfall model" discussed but no other systems development paradigms or engineering methodologies? Is this section intended to be an overview of the Software development process? Rather than try to rehash specific paradigms/processes like Waterfall, perhaps it should summarize what computer programming consists of in relation to computer programs, and what are key concepts such as process models, development/code organization strategy, software lifecycle, etc.
Program modules: I am not sure why this is a top-level section. The word "module" can refer to sections of a program, or namespaces, or files. It does not necessarily have to do with software aging, but can be simply about software size and separation of concerns. Is this section about code organization more generally?
Functional categories: I like this section.
Other inclusions: The article mentions only a few programming languages and should at least mention, in a few sentences, different programming languages that exist and how computer programs differ in different languages. For example:

the article doesn't contain the words "static" or "dynamic"
the article never mentions "Python", "Java" except for a sentence in the intro, "Javascript", or many other popular languages.

The article lacks a discussion of what counts as a computer program, not an easy concept. E.g. HTML? LaTeX? Have computer scientists discussed what counts as a program and how have different scientists agreed/disagreed on basic inclusions?

Minor comments:

First sentence: I disagree that the difference between imperative and declarative programming is whether the instructions are a list or a set. This would only be true in certain languages, not in others. I would suggest: "In computer programming, a computer program is a set or sequence of instructions in a programming language that a computer can execute or interpret."
Is "The Free Dictionary: computer program" a reliable source? Didn't find it listed at WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

For a topic with a controversial definition like this, more work may be required to source the definition in the lead.

Program execution box at the top: Why do notable compilers only include GCC, LLVM, and CLang
"For examples of declarative languages, visit Declarative_programming#Examples." -- would be great to have a broad survey of a few examples, this can be pointed to with "see also" or another similar template rather than ad hoc text
"Example packages include accounts payable and payroll" -- This is a non sequitur. Examples of fifth generation languages include specific applications for accounts payable and payroll? I am not sure what the writer had in mind. (But I don't think the entire concept of a 5GL is accepted today, see comments above.)
Programming-in-the-small/programming-in-the-large: seems out of place, why is this discussed here and not e.g. under modules
"Utility programs detect computer viruses." Comment may be out of place / unreferenced / unexplained

Note that I didn't look at the article history or if there were any previous reviews so these are basically raw/unedited thoughts.

Good luck! Best, Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Why does the PL section include "Imperative Languages" and "Declarative languages" but "Object-oriented programming" is in a different place?: My research categorizes Object-oriented programming as a programming method, not a programming language. Timhowardriley (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Is "The Free Dictionary: computer program" a reliable source? No, it isn't a reliable source. However, the definition does properly introduce the rest of the lead section. This article has a history of contentious definitions of computer program. The current definition and its source are the result of collaboration. Timhowardriley (talk) 08:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Some key concepts are not covered, such as the semantics of computer programs.: See User:Timhowardriley/sandbox. Timhowardriley (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits so far! Several major improvements IMO. If you want help editing the article, let me know. Caleb Stanford (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article could use a section titled, "Syntax and semantics". The guiding definition I plan to follow is from Comparative Programming Languages by Wilson and Clark. It says, "The syntax (or grammar) of a programming language describes the correct form in which programs may be written while the semantics denotes the meaning that may be attached to the various syntactic constructs." Timhowardriley (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think that's a good idea, basing on Wilson and Clark seems fine, and I can help with those sections once you put in a placeholder. Other than Wilson/Clark, I think we may want 1-2 other good textbook sources from a programming languages/compilers perspective to complement the already excellent existing references. I'm not going to edit the article without your direction because I'd rather not contest informal "ownership" over the article content but there are plenty of places I see room for improvement and I'll continue to monitor and post feedback here on the talk page. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

Caleb Stanford, Timhowardriley, what is the status of this nomination/review? It looks like this review was never formally failed by Caleb Stanford, and that although Timhowardriley added a failure to the Article history template and immediately renominated the article, the review seems to be proceeding above. If there is work to be done, then continuing it in the auspices of a GA review on this page, where work to improve the article is a regular part of the reviewing process (unless there's too much wrong with the article to set right in a reasonable number of days). Note that if Caleb Stanford is planning to do significant work writing/editing sections of the article, a new reviewer will ultimately be needed for those sections. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: my assessment is fail with suggested revisions, but I am new to the reviewing process so I guess I did not follow the right protocol to formally resolve it above? In the talk page, User:Timhowardriley updated it but that caused to list as "nominated" for a 4th round on the nominations list, which was incorrect so I tried to roll that back to list the 3rd round target instead of 4. (Re writing/editing -- I haven't done significant edits yet to the article but will keep that in mind.) Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Stanford, the big question when you do a review and decide that the article doesn't meet the criteria, is whether the places it falls short can be rectified during the review process. It is expected that the majority of nominations will have something wrong, and sometimes a number of things. If the ways in which it falls short can reasonably be fixed within about seven days, the usual thing is to place the nomination on hold rather than to fail it outright, specifying on the review page what needs to be done to improve the article to the point where it meets the criteria. However, if the article's shortcomings are such that too much is wrong for it to be fixed in that period, failing it is the proper thing to do. Note that the last two GA nominations have been failed immediately because of significant issues (GA1 and GA2), so if that isn't the case here, then reopening this is a consideration. However, if this time significant issues remain, then it would be appropriate to fail the article as you did; what would not be appropriate in that case is an immediate renomination by Timhowardriley without addressing said significant issues first. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying! And especially for the overview of how the process works. Despite my generally positive review above (and positive view of the article's potential), the more I look into it the more problems and quibbles I find, so I expect that revisions will take more than 7 days. For that reason, I will list as failed for now and remove the GAN template. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is okay. I'll describe BNF in terms that even I can understand it. Then I'll renominate it. Timhowardriley (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, please let me know before re-nominating. I'd like to do some work on the article organization first and the article may not currently be stable. Lots of things out of place. OOP shouldn't be its own section, place it under "Programming Paradigms". The list of PLs with details and syntax is probably out of place; this isn't list of programming languages by type, it should instead provide an overview of how different languages relate to the key concept of a program. The article's strength right now is the History section (aside from the last part) and the section on "functional categories". Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hack at it. I'll only be in my sandbox. Thanks for your help. Timhowardriley (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]