Update

programming_language.md

@@ -57,6 +57,8 @@ A computer language consists from two main parts:
 
 **What is the best programming language and which one should you learn?** (See also [programming](programming.md).) These are the big questions, the topic of programming languages is infamous for being very [religious](holy_war.md) and different people root for different languages like they do e.g. for [football](football.md) teams. For [minimalists](minimalism.md), i.e. [suckless](suckless.md), [LRS](lrs.md) (us), [Unix](unix.md) people, [Plan9](plan9.md) people etc., the standard language is **[C](c.md)**, which is also probably the most important language in [history](history.md). It is not in the league of the absolutely most minimal and objectively best languages, but it's relatively minimalist (much more than practically any [modern](modern.md) language) and has great advantages such as being one of the absolutely fastest languages, being extremely well established, long tested, supported everywhere, having many compilers etc. But C isn't easy to learn as a first language. Some minimalist also promote [go](golang.md), which is kind of like "new C". Among the most minimal usable languages are traditionally [Forth](forth.md) and [Lisp](lisp.md) which kind of compete for who really is the smallest, then there is also our [comun](comun.md) which is a bit bigger but still much smaller than C. To learn programming you may actually want to start with some ugly language such as [Python](python.md), but you should really aim to transition to a better language later on.
 
+**Can you use multiple programming languages for one project?** Yes, though it may be a burden, so don't do it just because you can. Combining languages is possible in many ways, e.g. by embedding a [scripting](scripting.md) language into a compiled language, linking together object files produces by different languages, creating different programs that communicate over network etc.
+
 ## More Details And Context
 
 What really IS a programming language -- is it software? Is it a standard? Can a language be [bloated](bloat.md)? How does the languages evolve? Where is the exact line between a programming language and non-programming language? Who makes programming languages? Who "owns" them? Who controls them? Why are there so many and not just one? These are just some of the questions one may ask upon learning about programming. Let's try to quickly answer some of them.
@@ -75,7 +77,7 @@ A new language comes to existence just as other things do -- when there is a rea
 
 **So can a language be inherently fast, [bloated](bloat.md) etc.?** When we say a language is fast, bloated, memory efficient and so on, we often refer to its implementations because, as mentioned, a language is just an idea which can be implemented in many ways with different priorities and tradeoffs, so just keep in mind that talking about languages like this usually refers to the implementations. But on the other hand yes, a language CAN itself be seen as inherently having a similar property because it's simply such that its implementations more or less have to have this property. A very complicated language just cannot be implemented in a simple, non-bloated way, an extremely high level and flexible language cannot be implemented to be among the fastest -- so referring to language implementations we also a little bit refer to the language itself as an implementation reflects the abstract language's properties. **How to tell if language is bloated?** One can get an idea from several things, e.g. list of features, [paradigm](paradigm.md), size of its implementations, number of implementations, size of the specification, year of creation (newer mostly means more bloat) and so on. However be careful, many of these are just clues, for example small specification may just mean it's vague. Even a small self hosted implementation doesn't have to mean the language is small -- imagine e.g. a language that just does what you write in plain English; such language will have just one line self hosted implementation: "Implement yourself." But to actually [bootstrap](boot.md) the language will be immensely difficult and will require a lot of bloat.
 
-**Can you use multiple programming languages for one project?** Yes, though it may be a burden, so don't do it just because you can. Combining languages is possible in many ways, e.g. by embedding a [scripting](scripting.md) language into a compiled language, linking together object files produces by different languages, creating different programs that communicate over network etc.
+Judging languages may further be complicated by the question of what the language encompasses because some languages are e.g. built on relatively small "pure language" core while relying on a huge library, preprocessor, other embedded languages and/or other tools of the development environment coming with the language -- for example [POSIX shell](posix_shell.md) makes heavy use of separate programs, utilities that should come with the POSIX system. Similarly [Python](python.md) relies on its huge library. So sometimes we have to make it explicitly clear about this.
 
 ## Notable Languages
 
@@ -100,6 +102,7 @@ Here is a table of notable programming languages in chronological order (keep in
 | [Bash](bash.md)         | well             | 1989  |                         |                        | Unix scripting shell, very ugly syntax, not so elegant but bearable     |
 | [Haskell](haskell.md)   | **kind of**      | 1990  |                         | 150, proprietary       | [functional](functional.md), compiled, acceptable                       |
 | [Python](python.md)     | NO               | 1991  |                         | 200? (p. lang. ref.)   | interpreted, huge bloat, slow, lightweight OOP, artificial obsolescence |
+| POSIX [shell](shell.md) | well, "kind of"  | 1992  |                         | 50, proprietary (paid) | standardized (std 1003.2-1992) Unix shell, commonly e.g. [Bash](bash.md)|
 |[Brainfuck](brainfuck.md)| **yes**          | 1993  | 100 (judg. by dbfi)     | 1                      | extremely minimal (8 commands), hard to use, [esolang](esolang.md)      |
 | [Lua](lua.md)           | **kind of**      | 1993  |                         |                        | interpreted, mainly for scripting (used a lot in games)                 |
 | [Java](java.md)         | NO               | 1995  |                         | 800, proprietary       | forced [OOP](oop.md), "platform independent" (bytecode), slow, bloat    |