STM Journals Peer-reviewed research from Consortium e-Learning Network

International Journal of Computer Science Languages Review Article

The Evolution of Computer Languages: Fundamentals, Paradigms, and Consequences

  1. V. Basil Hans Department of Management and Commerce, Srinivas University, Mangaluru

Abstract

In today’s society, computers are important tools because they let us quickly analyze, store, and share information. A variety of programming languages that let people talk to machines are at the heart of how computers work. These languages, which are divided into low-level and high-level kinds, connect human logic and machine actions. Low-level languages such as machine code and assembly allow direct interaction with computer hardware. In contrast, high-level languages like Python, Java, and C++ offer more user-friendly syntax and built-in abstractions, making them easier to read and work with. Each programming language has its own set of capabilities that make it good for certain jobs, such as making websites, analyzing data, making AI, and creating systems. To make software, fix hard issues, and move technology forward, you need to know how to read and write computer languages. This article talks about the basics of computers and looks at how programming languages have changed over time, what kinds there are, and why they are important in the digital age.

Keywords

References (29)

  1. Crafa S. The role of concurrency in an evolutionary view of programming abstractions. Journal of Logical and Algebraic Methods in Programming. 2015;84(6):732-741. doi:10.1016/j.jlamp.2015.07.006
  2. Michaelson G. Programming Paradigms, Turing Completeness and Computational Thinking. The Art, Science, and Engineering of Programming. 2020;4(3). doi:10.22152/programming-journal.org/2020/4/4" rel="nofollow">doi:10.22152/programming-journal.org/2020/4/4
  3. Randall DL. Formal methods in the foundations of science [Thesis]. Pasadena (CA): California Institute of Technology; 1970.
  4. Gallo C. An approach to the description of formal languages’ semantics. J Math Sci Adv Appl. 2008;1(1):91–108.
  5. Dooley RA. Pragmatics and grammar: Motivation and control. Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session. 1988;32(1). doi:10.31356/silwp.vol32.03
  6. Brochhagen T, Franke M, van Rooij R. Coevolution of Lexical Meaning and Pragmatic Use. Cognitive Science. 2018;42(8):2757-2789. doi:10.1111/cogs.12681
  7. Reynolds JC. Definitional Interpreters for Higher-Order Programming Languages. Higher-Order and Symbolic Computation. 1998;11(4):363-397. doi:10.1023/a:1010027404223
  8. Collin J, Dagenais M. Fast recompilation of object oriented modules [Preprint]. 2005. arXiv:cs/0506035. doi:10.48550/arXiv.cs/0506035.
  9. Chronaki CE. Parallelism in declarative languages [Thesis]. Rochester (NY): Rochester Institute of Technology; 1990. Available from: https://repository.rit.edu/theses/649.
  10. Zanev V, Radenski A. Two-Language, Two-Paradigm Introductory Computing Curriculum Model and its Implementation. Serdica Journal of Computing. 2011;5(2):129-152. doi:10.55630/sjc.2011.5.129-152
  11. Castro LM. It was never about the language: Paradigm impact on software design decisions [Preprint]. 2020. arXiv:2010.08292. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2010.08292.
  12. Radenski AA. Object-oriented programming and parallelism: Introduction. Information Sciences. 1996;93(1-2):1-7. doi:10.1016/0020-0255(96)00058-8
  13. Tratt L. Dynamically typed languages [Thesis]. London: King’s College London; 2009.
  14. Shidal JA. Exploiting the weak generational hypothesis for write reduction and object recycling [Thesis]. St. Louis (MO): Washington University; 2016.
  15. Borg A, Wellings A, Gill C, Cytron RK. Real-Time Memory Management: Life and Times. 18th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS'06). 237-250. doi:10.1109/ecrts.2006.21
  16. Berger ED. Memory management for high-performance applications [PhD thesis]. Austin (TX): University of Texas; 2002.
  17. Cazzola W, Vacchi E. Language components for modular DSLs using traits. Computer Languages, Systems & Structures. 2016;45:16-34. doi:10.1016/j.cl.2015.12.001
  18. Tratt L. Domain specific language implementation via compile-time meta-programming. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems. 2008;30(6):1-40. doi:10.1145/1391956.1391958
  19. Matos P, Henriques PR. Applying compiler technology to solve generic problems. In: Proceedings of the III Congress Luso-Mocambicano Engenharias, 2023. Porto (Portugal): INEGI, FEUP; 2003.
  20. Henriques PR, Pereira MJV, Mernik M, Leni M, Gray J, Wu H. Automatic generation of language-based tools using the LISA system. IEE Proceedings - Software. 2005;152(2):54. doi:10.1049/ip-sen:20041317
  21. Pimás JE, Marr S, Garbervetsky D. Live Objects All The Way Down: Removing the Barriers between Applications and Virtual Machines. The Art, Science, and Engineering of Programming. 2023;8(2). doi:10.22152/programming-journal.org/2024/8/5" rel="nofollow">doi:10.22152/programming-journal.org/2024/8/5
  22. Solé RV, Corominas-Murtra B, Fortuny J. Diversity, competition, extinction: the ecophysics of language change. Journal of The Royal Society Interface. 2010;7(53):1647-1664. doi:10.1098/rsif.2010.0110
  23. Dubochet G. Computer code as a medium for human communication: Are programming languages improving? In: Proceedings of the 21st Working Conference on the Psychology of Programmers Interest Group; 2009. p. 174–187.
  24. Tratt L. Evolving a DSL Implementation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2008:425-441. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88643-3_11
  25. Dimovski A, Lazić R. Compositional software verification based on game semantics and process algebra. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer. 2006;9(1):37-51. doi:10.1007/s10009-006-0005-y
  26. Kim DYJ. Redefining computer science education: Code-centric to natural language programming with AI-based no-code platforms [Preprint]. 2023. arXiv:2308.13539. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2308.13539.
  27. Godwin-Jones R. Distributed agency in second language learning and teaching through generative AI. Language Learning & Technology. 2024;28(2):5-31. doi:10.64152/10125/73570
  28. Perugini S. The design of an emerging/multi-paradigm programming languages course. J Comput Sci Coll. 2018;34(1):52–59.
  29. Meyer B. Right and wrong: Ten choices in language design [Preprint]. 2022. arXiv:2211.16597. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2211.16597.