Dictionary Thesaurus Word Dynamo Quotes Reference Translator Spanish

Comparison of programming languages

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 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.

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	Web, client-side	imperative, object-oriented, event-driven	, ECMA
Ada	Applications, Embedded and Realtime	concurrent, distributed, generic, imperative, object-oriented	, ANSI, ISO, GOST 27831-88
ALGOL 58	Application	imperative
ALGOL 60	Application	imperative	, ISO
ALGOL 68	Application	concurrent, imperative	, GOST_27974-88
APL	Application, Data processing	array-oriented	, ISO
Assembly language	General
AutoIt	Highly domain-specific, GUI Automation(macros)
BASIC	Application, Education	procedural	, ANSI, ISO
BeanShell	Application, Scripting	imperative, object-oriented, functional, reflective	, JCP
BLISS	System	procedural
Boo	Application
C	System	imperative	, ANSI C89, ISO C90/C99
C++	Application, System	imperative, object-oriented, generic	, ISO
C#	Application	imperative, object-oriented, generic, reflective	, ECMA, ISO
Chrome	Application	imperative, object-oriented, generic
Clean	General	functional, generic
COBOL	Application, Business	imperative, object-oriented
ColdFusion	Web Development	procedural, object-oriented
Common Lisp	General	imperative, functional, object-oriented
Curl	Rich Internet Applications	event-driven, functional, imperative, object-oriented, generic, reflective
D	Application, System	imperative, object-oriented, generic
Dylan	Application	functional, object-oriented
Eiffel	Application	imperative, object-oriented, generic	, ECMA, ISO
Erlang	Application, Distributed and Telecom	functional, concurrent, distributed
Factor		stack-oriented
FP		functional
F#	Application	functional, object-oriented, imperative, generic
Forth	General	imperative, stack-oriented	, ANSI
Fortran	Application, scientific and engineering	imperative, procedural, object-oriented
GraphTalk		logic-oriented, object-oriented
Groovy	Application	imperative, object-oriented, aspect-oriented
Haskell	Application	functional, generic, lazy evaluation
Io	Application, Host-driven Scripting	imperative, object-oriented
J	Data processing	array-oriented, function-level, tacit
Java	Application	imperative, object-oriented, generic, reflective	, ECMA, ISO
JavaScript	Web, client-side	imperative, object-oriented, functional, reflective	, ECMA
Joy	research	functional, stack-oriented
Lua	Host-driven Scripting	procedural, imperative, reflective
Mathematica	Highly domain-specific, Math	functional, procedural
MATLAB M-code	Highly domain-specific, Math	imperative, object-oriented
Modula-2	Application	imperative, generic	, ISO
Modula-3	Application	imperative, object-oriented, generic
Oberon	General	imperative, object-oriented
Objective-C	Application	imperative, object-oriented, reflective
Objective Caml	Application	object-oriented, functional, imperative, generic
Object Pascal (Delphi)	Application	imperative, object-oriented, generic, event-driven
Oz	Education	logic, functional, imperative, object-oriented, concurrent
Pascal	Application, Education	imperative, procedural	, ISO
Perl	Text processing, Scripting	imperative, procedural, reflective, functional, object-oriented, generic
PHP	Web, server-side	imperative, object-oriented, reflective
PL/I	Application, COBOL's and Fortran's original domain	imperative, object-oriented
Prolog	Application, Artificial intelligence	logic	, ISO
Python	Application, non-speed critical	imperative, object-oriented, functional, aspect-oriented, reflective
REALbasic	Application
RPG	Application
Ruby	Application, Scripting	imperative, object-oriented, aspect-oriented, reflective
S	Application, Statistics	imperative, procedural, functional, object-oriented
S-Lang	Application, Scripting, Numerical	imperative, procedural
Scala	Application, Education	object-oriented, functional, generic
Scheme	General, Education
Smalltalk	Application, Education	object-oriented, concurrent, event-driven, imperative, declarative	, ANSI
SNOBOL	Text processing
Tcl	Application, Scripting	imperative, procedural, event-driven
Visual Basic	Application, Education	component-oriented, event-driven
Visual Basic .NET	Application, Education	object-oriented, event-driven
Visual Prolog		logical, object-oriented, functional, event-driven, imperative, declarative
Windows PowerShell	Administration	imperative, object-oriented, functional, pipeline, reflective
XL		concept programming, imperative (by default), object-oriented (multiple models)
Language	Intended use	Paradigm(s)	Standardized?

Type systems

Language	Type strength	Type safety	Expression of types	Compatibility among composite types	Type checking
ActionScript 3.0	strong	safe			static
Ada	strong	safe	explicit	name based	static
ALGOL 58	strong	safe			static
ALGOL 60	strong	safe			static
ALGOL 68	strong	safe		property based	static or dynamic (.5D:_Structures.2C_unions_and_arrays)
APL	strong	safe			dynamic
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	weak	unsafe	explicit	name based	static
C++ (ISO/IEC 14882)	strong	unsafe	explicit	name based	static
C#	strong	unsafe	implicit	name based	partially dynamic
Clean	strong		implicit		static
COBOL	strong				static
ColdFusion	strong	safe	implicit		dynamic
Common Lisp	strong	safe			dynamic
Curl	strong	safe		name based
D	strong	unsafe	explicit	name based	static
Dylan	strong	safe			dynamic
Eiffel	strong	safe		name based	static
Erlang	strong				dynamic
F#	strong	safe	implicit	name based	static
Forth	none	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
Fortran	strong	safe		name based	static
GraphTalk	weak
Groovy	strong	safe	implicit		dynamic
Haskell	strong		implicit	property based	static
Io	strong				dynamic
J	strong	safe			dynamic
Java	strong	safe	explicit	name based	static
JavaScript	weak		implicit		dynamic
Joy	strong	safe			dynamic
Lua	strong	safe	implicit		dynamic
Mathematica	strong				dynamic
MATLAB M-code					dynamic
Modula-2	strong	unsafe	explicit	property based	static
Modula-3	strong	unsafe	explicit	property based	static
Oberon	strong	safe	explicit		static
Objective-C	weak		explicit		static
Objective Caml	strong	safe	implicit	property based	static
Object Pascal (Delphi)	strong	unsafe	explicit	name based	static
Oxygene	strong	unsafe	implicit		static
Oz					dynamic
Pascal	strong	unsafe	explicit	name based	static
Perl 5	weak		implicit		dynamic
Perl 6			partially implicit (explicit for static types)		dynamic with optional static typing
PHP	weak		implicit		dynamic
Prolog	strong				dynamic
Python	strong	safe	implicit	property based	dynamic
Ruby	strong	safe	implicit	property based	dynamic
S	strong				dynamic
S-Lang	strong	safe	implicit		dynamic
Scala	strong		partially implicit		static
Scheme	strong				dynamic (latent)
Smalltalk	strong	safe	implicit		dynamic
Tcl					dynamic
Visual Basic	strong	safe		name based	static
Visual Basic .NET	strong	unsafe			static
Visual Prolog	strong	safe		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

Expressiveness

Language	Statements ratio	Lines ratio
C	1	1
C++	2.5	1
Fortran	2.5	0.8
Java	2.5	1.5
Perl	6	6
Smalltalk	6	6.25
Python	6	6.5

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

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.