Category talk:Unimplemented

Are unimplementable programming languages supposed to be included, or not? (In my opinion it probably shouldn't be; it should belong in category of unimplementable, instead.) --Zzo38 (talk) 07:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely. It's annoying when looking for a language to implement (for practice or to relieve boredom, perhaps), to find an interesting one only to realize it's impossible. Taneb (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I also feel like an unimplementable category is a good idea, but unimplementable implies unimplemented (rather strongly). e.g. if you want a list of all unimplemented languages, you should also see all languages which are unimplemented because they are unimplementable... at the same time you should be able to see that that is the reason why they are unimplemented. Would making Unimplementable a sub-category of Unimplemented solve this problem? Chris Pressey (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps Unimplementable should be a sub-category fo Unimplemented but not directly including those files in Unimplemented. --Zzo38 (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)