Category talk:Educational programming languages

Education Category‑class

	Education portal This category is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Category	This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Computing Category‑class

	This category is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Category	This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Untitled edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This one is missing: https://github.com/TGlas/tscript — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A05:3E00:1:5B:7D9B:D6E8:E9DF:A49E (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are two problems here:

- Languages designed for teaching programming. Many of these are also useful as general purpose programming languages. Pascal, Scheme and Turing are good examples.
- Toy languages designed for teaching one aspect of programming. For example, miniature languages for compiler construction courses, where the point of the language is to be small enough that students can write complete compilers for it in one semester, or languages that illustrate just one semantic feature.
- Languages designed for the construction of computer-based instructional material. Some of these are not general purpose programming languages, but others, such as TUTOR, evolved to the point that they became general purpose languages. These are certainly very distinct from the first two categories, since, in general, they were designed for use by instructors and curriculum developers, not by students.

Someone needs to look at all these languages and redo the classification scheme. Douglas Jones 128.255.45.57 (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply