From recent edit: "not a language, see Category:Years"
This is a grey area. On one hand it's an INTERCAL compiler. On the other, it's a set of extensions to the language itself, so could itself be considered a language along the lines of the several that are BF with added features. Or is the claim being made that C-INTERCAL is the compiler, not the almost-superset of INTERCAL that it compiles, and so the latter would need an article of its own in order to assign language categories to it? — Smjg (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- You're right, it is a grey area. I removed the language category since C-INTERCAL is in Category:Implementations and no language categories, and so having a year category without any of the language categories would be incorrect. A change to add language categories along with the year categories would be a different matter.
- It's true that there are two entities called C-INTERCAL: an esoteric programming language, which is a derivative of INTERCAL; and an implementation of this language. However, having an article for both seems needlessly confusing and pedantic, so I would not object to the inclusion of language categories, especially since its extensions to INTERCAL-72 are quite substantial. I note that CLC-INTERCAL is present on the language list but does not, itself, have any language categories. (Ugh... this is why we need the language list to be sourced from Category:Languages.) —ehird 17:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)