⚠️ Warning: This is a draft ⚠️

This means it might contain formatting issues, incorrect code, conceptual problems, or other severe issues.

If you want to help to improve and eventually enable this page, please fork RosettaGit's repository and open a merge request on GitHub.

{{Vptopic |topic=Specification Languages |summary=What languages can be included in Rosetta Code? }}

I was wondering if RC is strictly about '''programming''' languages or whether specification languages could be interesting, too? More specifically, I'm thinking of specification languages that allow to "solve" their models, i.e. create example instantiations automatically. Those languages are relatively well-suited to implement logic puzzles like [[Zebra puzzle]]. Some of these languages have pretty interesting semantics and syntax, for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alloy_(specification_language) Alloy].

So, is it programming languages only, or do we tolerate languages that are only "somewhat executable"? - [[User:Wmeyer|Wmeyer]] ([[User talk:Wmeyer|talk]]) 14:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

:Hi, reading [[wp:Specification language]], I found: ::''Specifications must be subject to a process of refinement (the filling-in of implementation detail) before they can actually be implemented. The result of such a refinement process is an executable algorithm, which is either formulated in a programming language, or in an executable subset of the specification language at hand.'' :Then it should be OK to give examples written in an executable subset of such specification languages if one exists otherwise I would think that if it cannot be executed then it would not be suitable for comparison with other examples. Maybe the un-refined and refined to an executable could be given, but if the executable source is in another language then that may cause issues with the normal tasks example headers. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 16:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)