text:
Children of a Lesser God (film)

Children of a Lesser God is a 1986 American romantic drama film directed by Randa Haines from a screenplay written by Hesper Anderson and Mark Medoff and based on Medoff's 1979 play of the same name. The film stars William Hurt, Marlee Matlin (in her film debut), Piper Laurie, and Philip Bosco. The film's narrative follows two employees at a school for the deaf: a Deaf custodian and a hearing speech teacher, whose conflicting ideologies on speech and deafness create tension and discord in their developing romantic relationship.

Children of a Lesser God premiered at the 37th Berlin International Film Festival, where it competed for the Golden Bear, while Haines received a Special Silver Bear. It was theatrically released on October 3, 1986, by Paramount Pictures to critical and commercial success. Reviewers praised Haines's direction, the screenplay, and particularly the performances of Hurt, Matlin, and Laurie. The film grossed $101.5 million worldwide on a $10.5 million budget. It received five nominations at the 59th Academy Awards: Best Picture, Best Actor (for Hurt), Best Supporting Actress (for Laurie), Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Actress (for Matlin). At age 21, Matlin became the youngest Best Actress winner as well as the first deaf winner in Oscar history.

Plot
An energetic new teacher, James Leeds, arrives at a school for the deaf and hard of hearing in New England. He soon sees a young deaf woman, Sarah Norman, working as a janitor. Sarah, a former top student, is not well regarded by the hearing staff, but seems to integrate well with the deaf students. James begins to try to talk with her, arranging a meeting through her boss, pursuing her after school while she is attempting to clean, and persisting despite being rejected several times. She eventually agrees to go to dinner, and from the sidelines he watches her dance as she feels the music.

Sarah does not want to use her voice, and James eventually agrees not to try to force her to—a promise he later breaks. He finds out that Sarah refuses to visit her home, and assumes her mother has stopped reaching out. Through her mother, James finds out that Sarah and her sister Ruth were popular, and according to her mother her peers treated Sarah as if she was not different from other women. Unfortunately, Sarah later reveals that she was sorely used by the unnamed "boys", and may have been a victim of sex abuse. Such treatment has led Sarah to mistrust men and resist interacting with anyone. Later, in a pool scene, he walks in on her swimming nude. James confesses that he is falling in love with Sarah. She seems to be afraid. He falls into the pool on purpose, which changes the mood of the interaction. They share a passionate kiss in the water, then James undresses. It is implied that they have sex that night for the first time.

The relationship between James and Sarah develops. The school superintendent warns James that he does not believe the relationship will work, but James is adamant that he will stay with Sarah because he loves her. James choreographs a dance with his deaf students, in which they lip-sync to a song on a stage in front of their parents. Sarah sees this performance and becomes upset over the fact that the students use their voices. The conflict between James and Sarah persists as she thinks James hates her for not speaking. James convinces Sarah to leave her job and move in with him, although it is not clear what her plans for the future are. James's determination to hear Sarah speak and his inability to help her to develop individual pursuits frustrates her, and she feels he is patronizing her. They split up shortly after.

Sarah leaves James and goes to live with her estranged mother, reconciling with her in the process. James chases her, but she refuses to see him. After inquiring about her, James learns Sarah is working as a manicurist. Eventually, she and James reconcile at the school prom. They decide to learn how to stay connected in between the worlds of silence and sound.

Cast

 * William Hurt as James Leeds
 * Marlee Matlin as Sarah Norman
 * Piper Laurie as Mrs. Norman
 * Philip Bosco as Dr. Curtis Franklin
 * Allison Gompf as Lydia
 * Bob Hiltermann as Orin
 * Linda Bove as Marian Loesser

Development
After meeting deaf actress Phyllis Frelich in 1977 at the University of Rhode Island's New Repertory Project, playwright Medoff wrote the play Children of a Lesser God to be her star vehicle. Based partially on Frelich's relationship with her hearing husband Robert Steinberg, the play chronicles the tumultuous relationship and marriage between a reluctant-to-speak deaf woman and an unconventional speech pathologist for the deaf. With Frelich starring, Children of a Lesser God opened on Broadway in 1980, received three Tony Awards, including Best Play, and ran for 887 performances before closing in 1982.

Following the vast success of his Broadway debut, Medoff, with fellow writer Anderson, penned a screenplay adapted from the original script. Though many changes were made, the core love story remained intact. The title of the film comes from the eleventh chapter ("The Passing of Arthur") of Alfred Lord Tennyson's Idylls of the King.

Filming
The movie was shot primarily in and around Saint John, New Brunswick, during the autumn of 1985, with the Rothesay Netherwood School serving as the main set. Aside from locations in Saint John and Rothesay Netherwood School, sets were constructed by Saint John local Keith MacDonald.

Release
The adaptation premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 13, 1986, and was released widely in the United States on October 3 of the same year. Like its source material, the film generally gained praise from the hearing and deaf communities alike.

Box office
The film opened at number five at the box office in the United States and Canada with an opening weekend gross of $1,909,084. The film stayed in the top ten for eight weeks and grossed a total of $31,853,080. Internationally it grossed $69.6 million for a worldwide total of $101.5 million.

Critical reception
Children of a Lesser God received generally positive reviews. On Rotten Tomatoes, Children of a Lesser God holds an approval rating of 81% based on 36 reviews, with an average rating of 7.10/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "Children of a Lesser God transcends its transparently noble goals thanks to a pair of absorbing performances from William Hurt and Marlee Matlin." Particular praise was given to the film's two leads. Richard Schickel of Time magazine said of Matlin, "she has an unusual talent for concentrating her emotions—and an audience's—in her signing. But there is something more here, an ironic intelligence, a fierce but not distancing wit, that the movies, with their famous ability to photograph thought, discover in very few performances." Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film 3 out of a possible 4 stars, describing the subject matter as "new and challenging", saying he was "interested in everything the movie had to tell me about deafness." He continued, "The performances are strong and wonderful – not only by Hurt, one of the best actors of his generation, but also by Matlin, a deaf actress who is appearing in her first movie. She holds her own against the powerhouse she's acting with, carrying scenes with a passion and almost painful fear of being rejected and hurt, which is really what her rebellion is about." Paul Attanasio of The Washington Post said of the film, "This is romance the way Hollywood used to make it, with both conflict and tenderness, at times capturing the texture of the day-to-day, at times finding the lyrical moments when two lovers find that time stops." He goes on to say of Matlin, "The most obvious challenge of the role is to communicate without speaking, but Matlin rises to it in the same way the stars of the silent era did – she acts with her eyes, her gestures."

The film is not subtitled (neither the spoken dialogue nor the signing); instead, as Ebert observed, the signed dialogue is repeated aloud by Hurt's character, "as if to himself".

Awards and nominations
The film received five Academy Award nominations, with Marlee Matlin winning for Best Actress. Marlee Matlin was 21 years-old when she won, making her the youngest Best Actress winner to date and the first deaf Academy Award winner. Children of a Lesser God was the first ever female-helmed film to be nominated for Best Picture.

title: Children of a Lesser God (film)


text:
Hannah and Her Sisters

Hannah and Her Sisters is a 1986 American comedy-drama film written and directed by Woody Allen. It tells the intertwined stories of an extended family over two years that begins and ends with a family Thanksgiving dinner. Allen also stars in the film, along with Mia Farrow as Hannah, Michael Caine as her husband, and Barbara Hershey and Dianne Wiest as her sisters. Alongside them, the film features a large ensemble cast.

Hannah and Her Sisters was, for a long time, Allen's biggest box office success, with a North American gross of US$40 million. The film won Academy Awards for Best Original Screenplay (for Allen), Best Supporting Actor (for Caine), and Best Supporting Actress (for Wiest). It is often considered one of Allen's major works, with critics continuing to praise its writing and ensemble cast.

Plot
The story is told in three main arcs, with most of it occurring during a 24-month period beginning and ending at Thanksgiving parties, held at The Langham, hosted by Hannah, and her husband, Elliot. Hannah serves as the stalwart hub of the narrative; most of the events of the film connect to her.

Elliot becomes infatuated with one of Hannah's sisters, Lee, and eventually begins an affair with her. Elliot attributes his behavior to his discontent with his wife's self-sufficiency and resentment of her emotional strength. Lee has lived for five years with a reclusive artist, Frederick, who is much older. She finds her relationship with Frederick no longer intellectually or sexually stimulating, in spite of (or maybe because of) Frederick's professed interest in continuing to teach her. She leaves Frederick after admitting to having a dalliance with Elliot. For the remainder of the year between the first and second Thanksgiving gatherings, Elliot and Lee carry on their affair despite Elliot's inability to end his marriage to Hannah. Lee finally ends the affair during the second Thanksgiving, explaining that she is finished waiting for him to commit and that she has started dating someone else.

Hannah's ex-husband Mickey, a television writer, is present mostly in scenes outside of the primary story. Flashbacks reveal that his marriage to Hannah fell apart after they were unable to have children because of his infertility. However, they had twins who are not biologically his, before divorcing. He also went on a disastrous date with Hannah's sister Holly, when they were set up after the divorce. A hypochondriac, he goes to his doctor complaining of hearing loss, and is frightened by the possibility that it might be a brain tumor. When tests prove that he is perfectly healthy, he is initially overjoyed, but then despairs that his life is meaningless. His existential crisis leads to unsatisfying experiments with religious conversion to Catholicism and an interest in Krishna Consciousness. Ultimately, a suicide attempt leads him to find meaning in his life after unexpectedly viewing the Marx Brothers' Duck Soup in a movie theater. The revelation that life should be enjoyed, rather than understood, helps to prepare him for a second date with Holly, which this time blossoms into love.

Holly's story is the film's third main arc. A former cocaine addict, she is an unsuccessful actress who cannot settle on a career. After borrowing money from Hannah, she starts a catering business with April, a friend and fellow actress. Holly and April end up as rivals in auditions for parts in Broadway musicals, as well as for the affections of an architect, David. Holly abandons the catering business after the romance with David fails and decides to try her hand at writing. The career change forces her once again to borrow money from Hannah, a dependency that Holly resents. She writes a script inspired by Hannah and Elliot, which greatly upsets Hannah. It is suggested that much of the script involved personal details of Hannah and Elliot's marriage that had been conveyed to Holly through Lee (having been transmitted first from Elliot). Although this threatens to expose the affair between Elliot and Lee, Elliot soon disavows disclosing any such details. Holly sets aside her script, and instead writes a story inspired by her own life, which Mickey reads and admires greatly, vowing to help her get it produced and leading to their second date.

A minor arc in the film tells part of the story of Norma and Evan. They are the parents of Hannah and her two sisters, and still have acting careers of their own. Their own tumultuous marriage revolves around Norma's alcoholism and alleged affairs, but the long-term bond between them is evident in Evan's flirtatious anecdotes about Norma while playing piano at the Thanksgiving gatherings.

By the time of the film's third Thanksgiving, Lee has married a literature professor she met while taking random classes at Columbia University. Hannah and Elliot have reconciled their marriage. The film's final shot reveals that Holly is married to Mickey and that she is pregnant.

Cast
(in order of appearance)

Influences
Part of the film's structure and background is borrowed from Ingmar Bergman's Fanny and Alexander (1982). In both films, a large theatrical family gather for three successive years' celebrations (Thanksgiving in Allen's film, Christmas in Bergman's). The first of each gathering is in a time of contentment, the second in a time of trouble, and the third showing what happens after the resolution of the troubles. The sudden appearance of Mickey's reflection behind Holly's in the closing scene also parallels the apparition behind Alexander of the Bishop's ghost. Additional parallels can be found with Luchino Visconti's 1960 film Rocco and His Brothers, which, besides the connection to its name, also uses the structural device of dividing sections of the film for the different siblings' plot arcs.

Production
The film was originally about a man who fell in love with his wife's sister. Woody Allen then re-read the novel Anna Karenina "and I thought, it's interesting how this guy gets the various stories going, cutting from one story to another. I loved the idea of experimenting with that."

He was particularly intrigued by the character of Nicholas Levin "who can't seem to find any meaning to life, he's terribly afraid of dying. It struck home very deeply. I thought it would be interesting to do one story about the relationship between three sisters and one story about someone else and his obsession with mortality."

Allen admits the role of Hannah was based on Farrow being "a romanticized perception of Mia. She's very stable, she has eight children now, and she's able to run her career and have good relationships with her sister and her mother. I'm very impressed with those qualities, and I thought if she had two unstable sisters, it would be interesting."

Allen says he was also inspired by the title. "I thought I'd like to make a film called Hannah and Her Sisters", he said, saying this prompted him to give Hannah two sisters. He was interested in making something about the relationship between sisters which he felt was more complex than that between brothers. "Maybe that comes from childhood; my mother had seven sisters and their children were female so all I knew were aunts and female cousins."

Shooting began in October of 1984 in New York City, with Mia Farrow's real-life apartment being used.

Mia Farrow later wrote that Allen had been intrigued about the subject of sisters for a long time. His earlier co-stars Janet Margolin and Diane Keaton both had two sisters each, and Farrow had three. She says Allen gave her an early copy of Hannah and Her Sisters saying she could play whatever sister she wanted, but that "he felt I should be Hannah, the more complex and enigmatic of the sisters ... whose stillness and internal strength he likened to the quality Al Pacino projected in The Godfather".

Farrow wrote, "It was the first time I criticized one of his scripts. To me, the characters seemed self-indulgent and dissolute in predictable ways. The script was wordy but it said nothing." She claims "Woody didn't disagree and tried to switch over to" an alternative idea, "but preproduction was already in progress, and we had to proceed".

She later elaborated: "It was my mother's stunned, chill reaction to the script that enabled me to see how he had taken many of the personal circumstances and themes of our lives, and, it seemed, had distorted them into cartoonish characterizations. At the same time he was my partner. I loved him. I could trust him with my life. And he was a writer: this is what writers do. All grist for the mill. Relatives have always grumbled. He had taken the ordinary stuff of our lives and lifted it into art. We were honored and outraged."

Farrow admitted "a small sick feeling ... deep inside me" which "I shared with nobody was my fear that Hannah and Her Sisters had openly and clearly spelled out his feelings for my sister. But this was fiction, I told myself ... So I put those thoughts out of my mind."

Box office
Hannah and Her Sisters opened on February 7, 1986, in 54 theaters, where it grossed $1,265,826 ($23,441 per screen) in its opening weekend, the first time an Allen film had debuted in theaters in cities other than New York City. When it expanded to 761 theaters on March 14, it garnered a respectable $2,707,966 ($3,809 per screen). It went on to gross $40,084,041 in the United States (including a re-release the following year), and remains one of the highest-grossing Woody Allen films. Adjusted for inflation it falls behind Annie Hall (1977) and Manhattan (1979), and possibly also one or two of his early comedies. Midnight in Paris (2011) surpassed its box office as well.

The film was screened out of competition at the 1986 Cannes Film Festival.

Critical reception
On Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 91% based on 56 reviews, with an average rating of 8.40/10. The site's critics consensus reads: "Smart, tender, and funny in equal measure, Hannah and Her Sisters is one of Woody Allen's finest films." On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 90 out of 100, based on 12 critics, indicating "universal acclaim". The film received seven Academy Award nominations including Best Picture. Allen received two Academy Award nominations, winning one for Best Screenplay, Original and he earned a nomination for Best Director. His work on the film was also recognized with two BAFTA Awards.

Critics Siskel and Ebert each rated the film among the top three of the 1986 film year; Roger Ebert's 1986 review of the film called it "the best movie [Woody Allen] has ever made". Three years later when the two critics discussed their lists of the 10 best films of the 1980s, Ebert, who had included no comedies on his list, stated that had he been required to include one, it would have been Hannah And Her Sisters.

Vincent Canby, of The New York Times, gave the film a highly favorable review, going as far as to say that it "sets new standards for Mr. Allen as well as for all American movie makers".

A poll of 100 film critics named Hannah and Her Sisters the best film of the year, after it appeared on 71 individual top ten lists.

In 2005, the Writers Guild of America, West named Allen's script the 95th best film screenplay ever written.

In October 2013, the film was voted by readers of The Guardian as the fourth best film directed by Woody Allen.

In 2014, Calum Marsh of Slant Magazine named Hannah and Her Sisters as Allen's greatest film, praising its ensemble cast and Allen's "dense, heady script" for its "balancing act of conflicting desires and feelings". It was also listed as Allen's finest work in a joint article by The Daily Telegraph film critics Robbie Collin and Tim Robey, who compared its structure with the works of Anton Chekhov and lauded it as "perhaps the most perfectly assured braiding of comedy and drama in mainstream American film. It feels like the miraculous sweet spot between all of its filmmaker's many modes and tones – biting without being cruel, profound without seeming sanctimonious, warmly humane without collapsing into goo." It was ranked third among Allen's films in a 2016 poll of Time Out contributors, with editor Joshua Rothkopf singling out the character of Holly as "the kind of desperate, flailing Manhattanite that future director-writers would spin entire careers out of".

Accolades
Michael Caine and Dianne Wiest won Academy Awards for Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress for their portrayals of Elliot and Holly, respectively. Hannah and Her Sisters was the last film to win in both supporting acting categories until The Fighter in 2011. The film was also nominated for Best Art Direction-Set Decoration and Best Film Editing.

Allen received the 1986 award for Best Director from the U.S. National Board of Review of Motion Pictures, Dianne Wiest won Best Supporting Actress, and the film was nominated for Best Film.

In France, the film was nominated for a César Award for Best Foreign Film.

Legacy
In 1986, Mad magazine satirized the film as "Henna and Her Sickos" which was written by Debbee Ovitz with art by Mort Drucker.

In 2016, Olivia Wilde directed a live table reading of Hannah and Her Sisters at The New York Times' small and packed-out Times Center theatre. The cast included, Wilde as Hannah, Rose Byrne as Lee, Uma Thurman as Holly, Michael Sheen as Elliott, Bobby Cannavale as Mickey, and Salman Rushdie as Frederick with Maya Rudolph, Jason Sudeikis and Justin Long filling out the supporting parts. Questlove served as the musical director who cued the musical selections ranging from jazz renditions of the Great American Songbook to Bach.

Soundtrack
Note: not all of these selections appear on the soundtrack issued by MCA Records.
 * Sola, perduta abbandonata – Segment from the opera "Manon Lescaut" by Giacomo Puccini – Orchestra del Teatro Regio di Torino – Conductor Angelo Campori
 * You Made Me Love You – by Thomas Joseph McCarthy and James V. Monaco – Performed by Harry James
 * I've Heard That Song Before – by Sammy Cahn and Jule Styne – Performed by Harry James
 * Bewitched – by Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart – Performed by Lloyd Nolan and Maureen O'Sullivan
 * Just You, Just Me – by Raymond Klages and Jesse Greer – Performed by Dick Hyman
 * Where Or When – by Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart
 * Concerto For Two Violins and Orchestra – by Johann Sebastian Bach – The Sofia Soloists Chamber Orchestra – Conducted by Vasil Kazandzhiev
 * Back to the Apple – by Frank Foster and Count Basie – Performed by Count Basie and His Orchestra
 * The Trot – by Benny Carter – Performed by Count Basie and His Orchestra
 * I Remember You – by Johnny Mercer & Victor Schertzinger – Performed by Dave Brubeck
 * Madama Butterfly – by Giacomo Puccini – Performed by Orchestra e Coro del Teatro dell'Opera di Roma – Conducted by John Barbirolli
 * Concerto For Harpsichord In F minor – by Johann Sebastian Bach – Performed by Gustav Leonhardt
 * You Are Too Beautiful – by Lorenz Hart and Richard Rodgers – Performed by Derek Smith
 * If I Had You – by Jimmy Campbell, Reginald Connelly, and Ted Shapiro – Performed by Roy Eldridge
 * I'm in Love Again – by Cole Porter – Performed by Bobby Short
 * I'm Old Fashioned – by Jerome Kern and Johnny Mercer – Sung by Dianne Wiest – Piano: Bernie Leighton
 * The Way You Look Tonight – by Jerome Kern and Dorothy Fields – Sung by Carrie Fisher – Piano: Bernie Leighton
 * It Could Happen to You – by Johnny Burke and Jimmy Van Heusen – Performed by Dick Hyman
 * Polkadots and Moonbeams – by Johnny Burke and Jimmy Van Heusen – Performed by Dick Hyman
 * Avalon – Written by Vincent Rose, Al Jolson, and Buddy G. DeSylva – Performed by Dick Hyman
 * Isn't It Romantic – by Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart – Performed by Derek Smith
 * Slip Into the Crowd – by Michael Bramon – Performed by Michael Bramon and The 39 Steps
 * Freedonia's Going to War – from Duck Soup (1933) – Music by Harry Ruby – Performed by Groucho Marx, Chico Marx, Zeppo Marx, and Harpo Marx with chorus

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Hannah and Her Sisters


text:
Talk:Programming languages

This needs to be cleaned up and organized. I recommend several variants of the list on seperate pages:

 * Programming languages (alphabetical) - a bulleted alphabetical listing of languages but NOT dialects.
 * Format:
 * Language Name

 * Programming languages (cronological)(SP?) - a bulleted cronological list by introduction date. Again: No dialects.
 * Format:
 * 01/01/1940, Language Name

 * Programming languages (relational) - a bulleted list showing family trees in the same format as for the alphabetical listing. Again: No dialects.

For each language article, insert a 'dialects' section listing dialects. Major dialects that have significance to the development of the language, innovation or popularity should have thier own pages (maybe a / page?). Other dialects should be listed but have thier paragraph or so embedded in the list.

I'm going to start working on this immediately.

Rlee0001 02:15 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC)

title: Talk:Programming languages


text:
Talk:Lists of programming languages

TODO:

 * Syncronize languages in each list
 * Add summary beside each language (maybe?). Possible format:
 * BASIC - Acronym for Beginners All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code, BASIC is a general purpose, compiled language for many platforms. Some dialects and implimentations are interpretted. Others have incorporated object oriented concepts. Based partially on Fortran II and Algol 60. Originally implimented for time-sharing mainframes in 1964 at Dartmouth College by John George Kemeny (1926-1993) and Thomas Eugene Kurtz (1928-) on the GE-265. BASIC is used often in education.
 * Remove 'Language Type' categories from 'Language Categories' section.
 * Separate alphabetical list from list of categories.

(Rlee0001 03:30 Oct 28, 2002 (UTC))
 * "Add summary beside each language (maybe?)" I disagree, the page is cluttered as it is. If we add more summary clutter it will become more difficult to spot junk. Dd75sg (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Cocoa is a framework written in Objective C, not a programming language - Anonymous Coward

Markup Languages
I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but I notice that you include HTML, XML and other markup languages as programming languages on this list. In my computer science courses it was commonly taught that HTML does not constitute a programming language, because it is not compiled in any way. There may be more subtleties to this discussion, but I thought I would bring it up. Does anyone else have an opinion or expertise on this subject? -DropDeadGorgias 22:01, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Umm, has anyone else given this any thought? I haven't gotten any response from this post.  Either I'm wrong, or I'm right, I just want to know; if I'm right, there should be a separate list for markup languages, script languages, etc.  Is there anyone with domain expertise in this area? - DropDeadGorgias 21:05, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

 * The question whether HTML (etc.) is (are) (a) programming language(s) has made for a number of arguments in the past, and there are really no clear enough definitions of what a programming language is and isn't (or should and shouldn't be), and where the domain of programming languages ends and that of mark-up languages begins. The only formal property (as opposed to intuitive classification) that people tend to quote to distinguish mark-up languages from programming languages is their Turing-(in)completeness; however, this argument breaks down when you think about how, if you consider recursive functions a programming language on the grounds that they are Turing-complete, then primitive recursive functions aren't really very much different, and yet they are not Turing-complete.

 * Even worse is the distinction between programming languages and scripting languages, since both of them tend to be Turing-complete. Another argument often brought forward is whether they are compiled or interpreted; in the times of Basic and Pascal, this distinction was pretty clear-cut, but with more and more programming languages bridging the gap (e.g. Java being compiled into bytecode which is then interpreted and sometimes being just-in-time compiled, or Perl originally having been interpreted but now being processed rather like a just-in-time compiled language), this also falls down.

 * In summary, unless some sort of official authority comes forward and clearly defines what a programming language is and isn't, we should not attempt to classify computer languages into such groups. And such an authority is going to meet a lot of opposition and cause a lot of controversy, especially around Perl and Java. The best way to handle this all is to call it all a programming language.

 * End of essay. -- Timwi 22:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree that the distinction between true programming languages and scripting languages may be spurious in this case. However, I truly believe that markup languages should not be included on this list.  I notice that we have HTML and XML on this list.  Why, then, do we not include LaTEX, or even the proprietary encoding of Microsoft Word documents?
 * Dictionary.com's definition of a programming language is "An artificial language used to write instructions that can be translated into machine language and then executed by a computer." I do not believe that this definition is met by markup languages- as they do not cause the instructions of any machine language themselves.
 * Comments, questions? -- DropDeadGorgias 22:44, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

 * Technically, mark-up languages can be "translated into machine language and then executed by a computer". In an abstract way, <b> can be regarded as an instruction. The way a browser takes in HTML and lexes, parses and translates it into computer instructions that finally render the output, has a real lot in common with an interpreter processing a BASIC program. The distinction is by far not as clear-cut as it seems at first. You can even use a formal grammar to define HTML as a formal language, which is what the Java specification does to define the Java programming language.

 * However, please notice that I'm only stating what I believe the theoretical basis to be. I am not strictly arguing in favour of either way. I definitely won't revert you if you split this list up into "programming languages" and "mark-up languages", even if you do not provide a strictly formal criterion that distinguishes them (which I believe is not possible). However, I'm curious as to where you will place primitive recursive functions, finite state machines, regular expressions and the like. -- Timwi 23:17, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Just a quick response to your HTML instruction example- XML doesn't fit into that example, as none of the tags define any computer instructions at all. I think that this should be split up into two lists, and if there are no real objections, I'll start the new temporary list sometime this weekend at List of markup languages. - DropDeadGorgias 23:57, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

 * The XML specification itself may not pre-define computer instructions, but nor does (strictly speaking) the written representation of a primitive recursive function. It's all open to interpretion. Precisely because XML does not define those instructions, I can implement an application on top of XML that does, and can theoretically model primitive recursive functions, Turing machines or anything else I wish, progressively getting closer to what you would intuitively call a programming language. — Regardless, I'm looking forward to your split of this page. :-) — Timwi 20:48, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Umm, ok I've moved the obvious markup languages over to List of markup languages. A lot of the languages on the programming language list are pretty obscure though, so I didn't have time to look into all of them. If you spot any markup languages that are still on the list, please move them. I also wasn't sure what to do about things like XSLT; are they also considered markup languages? - DropDeadGorgias 21:28, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * Although XSLT may look like 'normal' XML markup, it actually is a kind of programming (scripting) language. Concepts like the for-each -loop separate it from markup languages. More info : http://www.topxml.com/xsl/articles/fp/ --anon

 * What, we don't want to eat in our own restaurant? :-) Programming language characterizes it as a means of instructing a computer in how to perform a computation, which is correctly vague. For instance, I would argue that a markup language like HTML is not a programming language because, by definition, it doesn't really specify a particular computation. On the other hand, one could argue that the C language spec doesn't define the result of "1 << 63"! And then we have TeX, which is intended for markup, but can do full computation. Practically speaking, it would be the least surprising if this list confined itself to languages where you can write a program to compute prime numbers, move other kinds of languages to different lists. Stan 23:47, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * You seem to equate "computation" with "Turing-machine or equivalent computation". This is not technically accurate. You'll certainly agree with me that primitive recursive functions can "compute" certain functions, and yet they cannot evaluate the Ackermann function. HTML may be even less powerful than primitive recursive functions, but it can certainly cause a computer to perform computations such as those required to lay out a table or to arrange paragraphs. — Timwi 20:48, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Markup languages cannot even compute what 1 + 1 equals. They cannot store or retrieve variables, because they 'are' variables. Markup languages are basically just lists of variables. There are no functions. It is not a programming language. If you want to be difficult and argue that it "causes computations to happen" then you might as well deem a Word Document a programming language. Then again, HTML does kind of have functions like "TABLE" and "B" so maybe it does count. I hope not though, because calling HTML a programming language would be ridiculous. I think Mark-up language by itself is not a programming language, as it is just setting variables. I guess HTML is a programming language, albeit an extremely simple one, because it is an 'interpreted' mark-up language. hmm? Good? --Ben 09:12, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * This is just not true, HTML can compute 1+1 just make a table with two cells in it containing the statement "The width of this cell is one" and you have computed two for a given problem. I know I'm being glib here (so no need to flame) but I hope I've shown the problem is not cut and dry.  Hogan 03:45, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Just call it Lists of computer languages. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

-

The Dreaded Script Language Discussion
Timwi, you alluded to the inevitable followup to the markup separation earlier, that of script languages. :

'':: Even worse is the distinction between programming languages and scripting languages, since both of them tend to be Turing-complete. Another argument often brought forward is whether they are compiled or interpreted; in the times of Basic and Pascal, this distinction was pretty clear-cut, but with more and more programming languages bridging the gap (e.g. Java being compiled into bytecode which is then interpreted and sometimes being just-in-time compiled, or Perl originally having been interpreted but now being processed rather like a just-in-time compiled language), this also falls down.''

I also have to bring forward the commonly given definition of a programming language: An artificial language used to write instructions that can be translated into machine language and then executed by a computer. As I went through the list of programming languages,. i came across several dubious entries, such as JavaScript, HTMLScript, PostScript, etc. If we include these scripting languages, why not shell languages like ksh? I am still unconvinced that a script language accomplishes this. I would like to begin to discuss this topic here, and possibly consider separating out another list List of script languages, or something suitably distinct. - DropDeadGorgias 21:28, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * All scripting languages fit that definition. And IMO, scripting and shell languages should be included in the list. Fredrik 01:15, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * This may be a nitpick, but Javascript definitely does not belong in a list of 'dubious languages'. It is an elegant fully object-oriented general-purpose language with some beatiful features not found anywhere else. The fact that some interpreter implementations have been lousy and that the browser Document Object Models often used in js development are incompatible with each other should not be counted against the language itself! A good read on this:

http://www.crockford.com/javascript/javascript.html --anon

 * Perhaps a scripting language is just a language that happens to be non-turing-complete. (Does anyone still write actual programming languages like that?). But that aside, typically this is the kind of disctinction that's only made by people who have only just learned to program in their first "real" language, and who want to feel important. Frankly I think those folks should just go and COME FROM hell, while we get on with writing an encyclopedia. Thank you for listening. ;-) Kim Bruning 10:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would it be practical to eventually include information on the 600+ and rising programming languages?

For example, http://99-bottles-of-beer.ls-la.net shows the syntaxes of 621 (and rising) programming languages. -- User:Ixfd64, 17:10 PDT, March 6

SAS
Somebody needs to write an article on the SAS language. Until then, I'm pointing SAS to SAS Institute, which is apparently the closest appropriate article at this time. -- Stevietheman 05:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wrote it but left it under SAS Institute. Gzuckier 19:16, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

language links
(moved from Talk:Programming language)

A great webpage is Zirings Dictionary on Programming languages

These are the language links currently listed in programming language. They need to be refactored and regularized. In particular, those language names that are ambiguous should all be "Lang programming language". There has been some attempt to make this consistent, but with exceptions (Awk, Bliss, etc.)

In the list below, I expected that one, sometines two, links in each line, one language per line, to work. The list should always show the current status of these links.

Personally, I think that "lang programming language" is more precise but "lang language" is just barely good enough. The only entries that presently use "lang language" are C (fixed now) and Ruby, so I am going to do what I can to make them work right and also what I can to make all the ambiguous ones work right with "lang programming language".

 * Ada -- Ada language -- Ada programming language
 * Algol -- Algol language -- Algol programming language
 * APL -- APL language -- APL programming language
 * Awk -- Awk language -- Awk programming language -- AWK programming language

 * BASIC -- BASIC language -- BASIC programming language
 * Altair BASIC, True BASIC, Visual Basic -- Visual Basic programming language
 * BCPL -- BCPL language -- BCPL programming language -- Basic Combined Programming Language
 * Befunge-- Befunge language -- Befunge programming language
 * BLISS -- BLISS language -- BLISS programming language
 * Blue -- Blue language -- Blue programming language
 * Brainfuck -- Brainfuck language -- Brainfuck programming language

 * C (letter) -- C language -- C programming language
 * C++
 * C#
 * COBOL -- COBOL language -- COBOL programming language
 * CORAL66 -- CORAL66 language -- CORAL66 programming language

 * Delphi -- Delphi language -- Delphi programming language -- Object Pascal
 * Dylan -- Dylan language -- Dylan programming language

 * Erlang -- Erlang language -- Erlang programming language
 * Euphoria -- Euphoria language -- Euphoria programming language

 * Forth -- Forth language -- Forth programming language
 * Fortran -- Fortran language -- Fortran programming language -- FORTRAN

 * Godiva -- Godiva language -- Godiva programming language

 * Haskell -- Haskell language -- Haskell programming language

 * Icon -- Icon language -- Icon programming language
 * InterCal -- InterCal language -- InterCal programming language -- INTERCAL programming language -- INTERCAL

 * Java -- Java language -- Java programming language
 * JavaScript -- JavaScript language -- JavaScript programming language -- ECMAScript
 * JOVIAL -- JOVIAL language -- JOVIAL programming language

 * Lisp -- Lisp language -- Lisp programming language -- LISP -- LISP language -- LISP programming language
 * Lua -- Lua language -- Lua programming language

 * m4 -- m4 macro language
 * Miranda -- Miranda language -- Miranda programming language
 * ML -- ML language -- ML programming language
 * Modula -- Modula programming language -- Modula-2 -- Modula-2 programming language -- Modula-3 -- Modula-3 programming language
 * MOO -- MOO language -- MOO programming language
 * M (letter) -- MUMPS -- MUMPS language -- MUMPS programming language

 * Nial -- Nial language -- Nial programming language

 * Oberon -- Oberon language -- Oberon programming language

 * Pascal -- Pascal language -- Pascal programming language
 * Perl -- Perl language -- Perl programming language
 * PHP -- PHP language -- PHP programming language
 * PL/I -- PL1 -- PL1 language -- PL1 programming language
 * POPLOG -- POPLOG language -- POPLOG programming language
 * PostScript -- PostScript language -- PostScript programming language
 * Prolog -- Prolog language -- Prolog programming language
 * Python -- Python language -- Python programming language

 * QuakeC -- QuakeC language -- QuakeC programming language

 * REBOL -- REBOL language -- REBOL programming language
 * REXX -- REXX language -- REXX programming language
 * RPG -- RPG language -- RPG programming language
 * Ruby -- Ruby language -- Ruby programming language

 * Scheme -- Scheme language -- Scheme programming language
 * sed -- sed language -- sed programming language
 * Simula -- Simula language -- Simula programming language
 * Smalltalk -- Smalltalk language -- Smalltalk programming language
 * SNOBOL -- SNOBOL language -- SNOBOL programming language
 * SPITBOL -- SPITBOL language -- SPITBOL programming language
 * SQL -- SQL language -- SQL programming language

 * Tcl -- Tcl language -- Tcl programming language
 * teco -- teco language -- teco programming language
 * tpu -- tpu language -- tpu programming language
 * Turing -- Turing language -- Turing programming language

 * Unicon -- Unicon language -- Unicon programming language
 * UnLamda -- UnLamda language -- UnLamda programming language

-- Buzco
 * VarAq -- VarAq language -- VarAq programming language
 * VBScript -- VBScript language -- VBScript programming language

-

Proper name of PL/I
Is it PL/1 or PL/I (ie: is it a one or an eye)
 * 1) eye, as in IBM. That is how the salesmen pronounced it, when I was in the computer room.
 * 2) PL/M is the CP/M version, smaller of course.

Digging around on IBM suggests that it is PL/I pronounced Pee Ell One (roman numeral for one). That is consistent with my Dragon Book which uses PL/I except in one place where it uses PL/1 but I think that might be a typo. It is called "PL/I" by the ANSI standard: ANSI X3.74-1987 (R1998) Title: Information Systems - Programming Language - PL/I General-Purpose Subset

 * PLOne is how I always heard it (including taking a course in it) as in Programming Language One, as in PS/2, etc. Very IBMish. Gzuckier 19:16, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

FORTRAN
(on Fortran:) The reason there is a redirect is because both spellings are used and we want obvious linking to work. The pages Fortran and FORTRAN should probably be swapped round, but it doesn't matter much.

--drj

on editing existing valid references to prog langs
User:Stan Shebs has recently been changing existing valid prog lang references from the LangName programming language format to the LangName one.

Previously there was a discussion (see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages))on whether or not there should be a standard for naming prog lang articles (while providing the [LangName (programming language)|LangName] redirects always and the [LangName] shortcut redirects when possible --i.e., in the same exact cases as the current practice, so no extra typing needed ever). The result of that discussion was that, even though of the 5 wikipedians actively involved in it, 3 voted for standardization (User:Danakil,User:ZeroOne,User:AdmN), 1 explicitly refrained from voting (User:TakuyaMurata), and only 1 opposed (User:Stan Shebs), nevertheless the decision was made not only to not proceed to perfect the current convention and standardize, but to actually proceed in the opposite direction and begin moving all existing prog lang articles which were created with the form [LangName programming language] to the [LangName] form when possible.

In spite of the voting, all of us involved accepted User:Stan Shebs decision and I, for the least, still do. However, as noted above, User:Stan Shebs, has now proceeded to begin changing existing references of the form [LangName programming language] to the potentially unstable form [LangName]. This is not what was discussed and accepted, and I can see no possible benefit to Wikipedia in making these reference changes. One of the core arguments for standardization was that LangName form prog lang articles were always at risk of being disambiguated later, and somebody would then have to go back and change all references. To give just one example, [Scala programming language] was recently changed to [Scala]... well, even more recently there was another meaning entered for 'Scala', which currently sits in the same article but will eventually have to be moved to its own and the [Scala] name disambiguated... in that context (and please let me be clear that I am not re-arguing the original case for standardization but rather I'm oppossing needless reference changes when these actually are potentially disadvantageous) what is the point of changing existing [LangName programming language] references?

— danakil 17:37, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm just doing what the naming convention calls for, and what policy on redirects calls for, which is why I carefully confirmed you were willing to go along with my project of fixing up all the names. It's dirty pool to claim that there was a vote when there wasn't, and to turn around and say you didn't really go along after all, even after I asked directly. The rationale for link-straightening is very simple - the duplicated string in the pipe is error-prone, because the righthand side is not checked for consistency; you would not believe the scores of mistakes I've been turning up! It's no wonder people are confused about article titling in this area, it's just a disaster, with some of the mistakes apparently dating back to the early days of WP. If names turn out to need disambigging later, then we'll take care of them as needed, just like we do every day with the other 330,000+ articles. Stan 17:54, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * No. We discussed the naming of the programming language articles: never the existing references to them. You talk about taking care of disambiguating, but I have been forced to fix more than a few double redirects myself produced as a result of your enforcing policy. Also, note that the decision was made to not make the policy clearer in terms of standardization, but this does not imply that any of those involved actually accepted (or rejected for that matter) that the current policy is adequate as it is. Regarding my alleged change of mind regarding your decision... what part of '...and please let me be clear that I am not re-arguing the original case for standardization and all of us involved accepted [User:Stan Shebs] decision and I, for the least, still do did you miss?? And about the vote... what do you call those three people saying 'I'm for standardization', one saying 'I have no opinion just follow convention'?? If that did not qualify as a vote for you... why didn't you called for a more formal vote, then? This situation so reminds me of Hugo Chavez handling the referendums in Venezuela...  — danakil 18:06, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * We have a real "voting" ("survey" they're calling it now) process, and I even suggested going that way; details are at Survey guidelines. Leaving references to go through redirs is bad practice and it is completely uncontested policy to "straighten" those; some people even have bots that go through and do them automatically, so it was going to happen sooner or later anyway, from me or somebody else. If I missed double redirs, sorry, I checked each article before and after, but it is a manual process and thus errorprone (I am working on a script to do a final check). The ad hominem reference to Chavez just lost you the plus sign that you had relative to Taku. And not even a word of thanks for cleaning up some truly awful longstanding messes, sniff. :-) Stan 18:30, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * When I see you cleaning up some Wikipedia mess, I'll make sure to thank you. I'm not interested in any kind of plus sign that you're involved in providing. Thanks, but no thanks. — danakil 18:36, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

What is ADL?
The ADL link goes to a disambiguation page that doesn't mention anything involving computers. Any ideas what it is? AdmN 01:36, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * A little googling is not prohibited: Assertion Definition Language. ;) --ZeroOne 15:07, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll pop something about this into the disambiguation page. AdmN 15:44, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Whoops... someone beat me to it. :) AdmN 15:50, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is AMOS really a programming language ? That link goes to a page that doesn't mention anything involving computers.

BASIC
Does BASIC belong in historical programming languages? In my opinion, historical programming languages are those that are defunct. BASIC is still in use, and many programs (I think the majority [could be VB though], but not sure on this) are programmed in BASIC. As such, I believe it should be tagged as industrial. Not all BASIC implementations in use are VB.
 * MSTCrow 02:43, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Esoteric Programming languages
In September 2004 esoteric programming languages were removed and a link added to List of esoteric programming languages. However, since then they have been creeping back in. Either they should be removed again, or the note "Note: Esoteric programming languages have been moved to the separate List of esoteric programming languages." at the top of the page must be removed.Yym 6 July 2005 09:21 (UTC)

I would think that the esoteric programming languages should be in the list. Having a master list of programming languages would probably create less confusion than having a main list and links to sub-lists that have simular characteristics. There can still be a separate list of esoteric languages, and basic and C derived languages, but this listing should be all inclusive.--Yarvin 6 July 2005 16:53 (UTC)

I count 381 languages on this page and 173 on the esoterics page. If you take into account that a number of languages are currently on both pages, that means in combined listing 1 in 3 languages would be esoteric. I think that would make it difficult to see the "serious" languages. In any case, if they are going to be here the note needs correcting. Perhaps they should be here, but marked somehow? Yym 7 July 2005 10:56 (UTC)

Just keep whacking the esoteric languages from this list. By their nature, it is extremely unlikely that anybody would ever look up an esoteric language without already knowing it was esoteric, and their presence on this list may lead people astray ("C-" for instance). The old criterion from Jean Sammet's book is a useful test ("is/was in regular use by other than the original developer"). Stan 7 July 2005 13:04 (UTC)

Order - ignore upper/lower case distinctions
moved mKR. Rhmccullough (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

add new language
Added KIF, a standardized AI language. Rhmccullough (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Why is Apex not listed? http://wiki.apexdevnet.com/index.php/Apex_Code:_The_World's_First_On-Demand_Programming_Language —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.89.115 (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

programming language or (programming language) ?
Why is there no standard for this? For mKR, I just copied Unicon, which has parentheses. But looking at this big list, there are a lot without parentheses. Rhmccullough (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Naming conventions (languages) now suggests the suffix "(programming language)" for disambiguation. It used to recommend the unparenthesized suffix but this was changed some time ago. — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Languages for beginners
Here is a review of some programming languages for novice programmers:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~caitlin/papers/NoviceProgSurvey.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.37.192.167 (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks
If a language is not notable enough to have its own wikipedia article then is it notable enough to warrant inclusion in this list? --ClickRick (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

by popularity
Certainly there should be some " by popularity" or " by estimated numbers of users" on Wikipedia, even if "it is hard to determine such numbers." Jidanni (talk) 12:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lists of programming languages


text:
Talk:Rigoletto (opera)

Put your text for the new page here. Does anyone know what Gilda's family name would be?

duh! whatever rigoletto's last name is

title: Talk:Rigoletto (opera)


text:
Joule–Thomson effect

In thermodynamics, the Joule–Thomson effect (also known as the Joule–Kelvin effect or Kelvin–Joule effect) describes the temperature change of a real gas or liquid (as differentiated from an ideal gas) when it is forced by a pressure difference through a valve or porous plug while keeping it insulated so that no heat is exchanged with the environment. This procedure is called a throttling process or Joule–Thomson process. The effect is purely an effect due to deviation from ideality, as any ideal gas has no JT effect.

At room temperature, all gases except hydrogen, helium, and neon cool upon expansion by the Joule–Thomson process when being throttled through an orifice; these three gases rise in temperature when forced through a porous plug at room temperature, but lowers in temperature when already at lower temperatures. Most liquids such as hydraulic oils will be warmed by the Joule–Thomson throttling process. The temperature at which the JT effect switches sign is the inversion temperature.

The gas-cooling throttling process is commonly exploited in refrigeration processes such as liquefiers in air separation industrial process. In hydraulics, the warming effect from Joule–Thomson throttling can be used to find internally leaking valves as these will produce heat which can be detected by thermocouple or thermal-imaging camera. Throttling is a fundamentally irreversible process. The throttling due to the flow resistance in supply lines, heat exchangers, regenerators, and other components of (thermal) machines is a source of losses that limits their performance.

Since it is a constant-enthalpy process, it can be used to experimentally measure the lines of constant enthalpy (isenthalps) on the $$(p, T)$$ diagram of a gas. Combined with the specific heat capacity at constant pressure $$c_P = (\partial h / \partial T)_P$$ it allows the complete measurement of the thermodynamic potential for the gas.

History
The effect is named after James Prescott Joule and William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, who discovered it in 1852. It followed upon earlier work by Joule on Joule expansion, in which a gas undergoes free expansion in a vacuum and the temperature is unchanged, if the gas is ideal.

Description
The adiabatic (no heat exchanged) expansion of a gas may be carried out in a number of ways. The change in temperature experienced by the gas during expansion depends not only on the initial and final pressure, but also on the manner in which the expansion is carried out.

 * If the expansion process is reversible, meaning that the gas is in thermodynamic equilibrium at all times, it is called an isentropic expansion. In this scenario, the gas does positive work during the expansion, and its temperature decreases.
 * In a free expansion, on the other hand, the gas does no work and absorbs no heat, so the internal energy is conserved. Expanded in this manner, the temperature of an ideal gas would remain constant, but the temperature of a real gas decreases, except at very high temperature.
 * The method of expansion discussed in this article, in which a gas or liquid at pressure P1 flows into a region of lower pressure P2 without significant change in kinetic energy, is called the Joule–Thomson expansion. The expansion is inherently irreversible. During this expansion, enthalpy remains unchanged (see proof below). Unlike a free expansion, work is done, causing a change in internal energy. Whether the internal energy increases or decreases is determined by whether work is done on or by the fluid; that is determined by the initial and final states of the expansion and the properties of the fluid.

The temperature change produced during a Joule–Thomson expansion is quantified by the Joule–Thomson coefficient, $$\mu_{\mathrm{JT}}$$. This coefficient may be either positive (corresponding to cooling) or negative (heating); the regions where each occurs for molecular nitrogen, N2, are shown in the figure. Note that most conditions in the figure correspond to N2 being a supercritical fluid, where it has some properties of a gas and some of a liquid, but can not be really described as being either. The coefficient is negative at both very high and very low temperatures; at very high pressure it is negative at all temperatures. The maximum inversion temperature (621 K for N2 ) occurs as zero pressure is approached. For N2 gas at low pressures, $$\mu_{\mathrm{JT}}$$ is negative at high temperatures and positive at low temperatures. At temperatures below the gas-liquid coexistence curve, N2 condenses to form a liquid and the coefficient again becomes negative. Thus, for N2 gas below 621 K, a Joule–Thomson expansion can be used to cool the gas until liquid N2 forms.

Physical mechanism
There are two factors that can change the temperature of a fluid during an adiabatic expansion: a change in internal energy or the conversion between potential and kinetic internal energy. Temperature is the measure of thermal kinetic energy (energy associated with molecular motion); so a change in temperature indicates a change in thermal kinetic energy. The internal energy is the sum of thermal kinetic energy and thermal potential energy. Thus, even if the internal energy does not change, the temperature can change due to conversion between kinetic and potential energy; this is what happens in a free expansion and typically produces a decrease in temperature as the fluid expands. If work is done on or by the fluid as it expands, then the total internal energy changes. This is what happens in a Joule–Thomson expansion and can produce larger heating or cooling than observed in a free expansion.

In a Joule–Thomson expansion the enthalpy remains constant. The enthalpy, $$H$$, is defined as
 * $$H = U + PV$$

where $$U$$ is internal energy, $$P$$ is pressure, and $$V$$ is volume. Under the conditions of a Joule–Thomson expansion, the change in $$PV$$ represents the work done by the fluid (see the proof below). If $$PV$$ increases, with $$H$$ constant, then $$U$$ must decrease as a result of the fluid doing work on its surroundings. This produces a decrease in temperature and results in a positive Joule–Thomson coefficient. Conversely, a decrease in $$PV$$ means that work is done on the fluid and the internal energy increases. If the increase in kinetic energy exceeds the increase in potential energy, there will be an increase in the temperature of the fluid and the Joule–Thomson coefficient will be negative.

For an ideal gas, $$PV$$ does not change during a Joule–Thomson expansion. As a result, there is no change in internal energy; since there is also no change in thermal potential energy, there can be no change in thermal kinetic energy and, therefore, no change in temperature. In real gases, $$PV$$ does change.

The ratio of the value of $$PV$$ to that expected for an ideal gas at the same temperature is called the compressibility factor, $$Z$$. For a gas, this is typically less than unity at low temperature and greater than unity at high temperature (see the discussion in compressibility factor). At low pressure, the value of $$Z$$ always moves towards unity as a gas expands. Thus at low temperature, $$Z$$ and $$PV$$ will increase as the gas expands, resulting in a positive Joule–Thomson coefficient. At high temperature, $$Z$$ and $$PV$$ decrease as the gas expands; if the decrease is large enough, the Joule–Thomson coefficient will be negative.

For liquids, and for supercritical fluids under high pressure, $$PV$$ increases as pressure increases. This is due to molecules being forced together, so that the volume can barely decrease due to higher pressure. Under such conditions, the Joule–Thomson coefficient is negative, as seen in the figure above.

The physical mechanism associated with the Joule–Thomson effect is closely related to that of a shock wave, although a shock wave differs in that the change in bulk kinetic energy of the gas flow is not negligible.

The Joule–Thomson (Kelvin) coefficient

The rate of change of temperature $$T$$ with respect to pressure $$P$$ in a Joule–Thomson process (that is, at constant enthalpy $$H$$) is the Joule–Thomson (Kelvin) coefficient $$\mu_{\mathrm{JT}}$$. This coefficient can be expressed in terms of the gas's specific volume $$V$$, its heat capacity at constant pressure $$C_{\mathrm{p}}$$, and its coefficient of thermal expansion $$\alpha$$ as:
 * $$\mu_{\mathrm{JT}} = \left( {\partial T \over \partial P} \right)_H = \frac V {C_{\mathrm{p}}}(\alpha T - 1)\,$$

See the below for the proof of this relation. The value of $$\mu_{\mathrm{JT}}$$ is typically expressed in °C/bar (SI units: K/Pa) and depends on the type of gas and on the temperature and pressure of the gas before expansion. Its pressure dependence is usually only a few percent for pressures up to 100 bar.

All real gases have an inversion point at which the value of $$\mu_{\mathrm{JT}}$$ changes sign. The temperature of this point, the Joule–Thomson inversion temperature, depends on the pressure of the gas before expansion.

In a gas expansion the pressure decreases, so the sign of $$\partial P$$ is negative by definition. With that in mind, the following table explains when the Joule–Thomson effect cools or warms a real gas:

Helium and hydrogen are two gases whose Joule–Thomson inversion temperatures at a pressure of one atmosphere are very low (e.g., about 40 K, −233 °C for helium). Thus, helium and hydrogen warm when expanded at constant enthalpy at typical room temperatures. On the other hand, nitrogen and oxygen, the two most abundant gases in air, have inversion temperatures of 621 K (348 °C) and 764 K (491 °C) respectively: these gases can be cooled from room temperature by the Joule–Thomson effect.

For an ideal gas, $$\mu_\text{JT}$$ is always equal to zero: ideal gases neither warm nor cool upon being expanded at constant enthalpy.

Theoretical models
For a Van der Waals gas, the coefficient is $$\mu_\text{JT}=-\frac{V_m}{C_{p}} \frac{R T V_m^{2} b-2 a(V_m-b)^{2}}{R T V_m^{3}-2 a(V_m-b)^{2}}.$$with inversion temperature $$\frac{2a}{bR}\left(1 - \frac{b}{V_m}\right)^2$$.

For the Dieterici gas, the reduced inversion temperature is $$\tilde T_I = 8 - 4/\tilde V_m$$, and the relation between reduced pressure and reduced inversion temperature is $$\tilde p = (8-\tilde T_I) e^{\frac 52 - \frac 4{8-\tilde T_I}}$$. This is plotted on the right. The critical point falls inside the region where the gas cools on expansion. The outside region is where the gas warms on expansion.

Applications
In practice, the Joule–Thomson effect is achieved by allowing the gas to expand through a throttling device (usually a valve) which must be very well insulated to prevent any heat transfer to or from the gas. No external work is extracted from the gas during the expansion (the gas must not be expanded through a turbine, for example).

The cooling produced in the Joule–Thomson expansion makes it a valuable tool in refrigeration. The effect is applied in the Linde technique as a standard process in the petrochemical industry, where the cooling effect is used to liquefy gases, and in many cryogenic applications (e.g. for the production of liquid oxygen, nitrogen, and argon). A gas must be below its inversion temperature to be liquefied by the Linde cycle. For this reason, simple Linde cycle liquefiers, starting from ambient temperature, cannot be used to liquefy helium, hydrogen, or neon. They must first be cooled to their inversion temperatures, which are -233 C (helium), -71 C (hydrogen), and -42 C (neon).

Proof that the specific enthalpy remains constant
In thermodynamics so-called "specific" quantities are quantities per unit mass (kg) and are denoted by lower-case characters. So h, u, and v are the specific enthalpy, specific internal energy, and specific volume (volume per unit mass, or reciprocal density), respectively. In a Joule–Thomson process the specific enthalpy h remains constant. To prove this, the first step is to compute the net work done when a mass m of the gas moves through the plug. This amount of gas has a volume of V1 = m v1 in the region at pressure P1 (region 1) and a volume V2 = m v2 when in the region at pressure P2 (region 2). Then in region 1, the "flow work" done on the amount of gas by the rest of the gas is: W1 = m P1v1. In region 2, the work done by the amount of gas on the rest of the gas is: W2 = m P2v2. So, the total work done on the mass m of gas is
 * $$W = mP_1 v_1 - mP_2 v_2.$$

The change in internal energy minus the total work done on the amount of gas is, by the first law of thermodynamics, the total heat supplied to the amount of gas.
 * $$ U - W = Q $$

In the Joule–Thomson process, the gas is insulated, so no heat is absorbed. This means that
 * $$\begin{align}

(mu_2 - mu_1) &- (mP_1 v_1 - mP_2 v_2) = 0 \\ mu_1 + mP_1 v_1 &= mu_2 + mP_2 v_2 \\ u_1 + P_1 v_1 &= u_2 + P_2 v_2 \end{align}$$

where u1 and u2 denote the specific internal energies of the gas in regions 1 and 2, respectively. Using the definition of the specific enthalpy h = u + Pv, the above equation implies that
 * $$h_1 = h_2$$

where h1 and h2 denote the specific enthalpies of the amount of gas in regions 1 and 2, respectively.

Throttling in the T-s diagram

A very convenient way to get a quantitative understanding of the throttling process is by using diagrams such as h-T diagrams, h-P diagrams, and others. Commonly used are the so-called T-s diagrams. Figure 2 shows the T-s diagram of nitrogen as an example. Various points are indicated as follows:

As shown before, throttling keeps h constant. E.g. throttling from 200 bar and 300K (point a in fig. 2) follows the isenthalpic (line of constant specific enthalpy) of 430kJ/kg. At 1 bar it results in point b which has a temperature of 270K. So throttling from 200 bar to 1 bar gives a cooling from room temperature to below the freezing point of water. Throttling from 200 bar and an initial temperature of 133K (point c in fig. 2) to 1 bar results in point d, which is in the two-phase region of nitrogen at a temperature of 77.2K. Since the enthalpy is an extensive parameter the enthalpy in d (hd) is equal to the enthalpy in e (he) multiplied with the mass fraction of the liquid in d (xd) plus the enthalpy in f (hf) multiplied with the mass fraction of the gas in d (1 − xd). So
 * $$h_d = x_d h_e + (1 - x_d) h_f.$$

With numbers: 150 = xd 28 + (1 − xd) 230 so xd is about 0.40. This means that the mass fraction of the liquid in the liquid–gas mixture leaving the throttling valve is 40%.

Derivation of the Joule–Thomson coefficient
It is difficult to think physically about what the Joule–Thomson coefficient, $$\mu_{\mathrm{JT}}$$, represents. Also, modern determinations of $$\mu_{\mathrm{JT}}$$ do not use the original method used by Joule and Thomson, but instead measure a different, closely related quantity. Thus, it is useful to derive relationships between $$\mu_{\mathrm{JT}}$$ and other, more conveniently measured quantities, as described below.

The first step in obtaining these results is to note that the Joule–Thomson coefficient involves the three variables T, P, and H. A useful result is immediately obtained by applying the cyclic rule; in terms of these three variables that rule may be written
 * $$\left(\frac{\partial T}{\partial P}\right)_H\left(\frac{\partial H}{\partial T}\right)_P \left(\frac{\partial P}{\partial H}\right)_T = -1.$$

Each of the three partial derivatives in this expression has a specific meaning. The first is $$\mu_{\mathrm{JT}}$$, the second is the constant pressure heat capacity, $$C_{\mathrm{p}}$$, defined by
 * $$C_{\mathrm{p}} = \left(\frac{\partial H}{\partial T}\right)_P $$

and the third is the inverse of the isothermal Joule–Thomson coefficient, $$\mu_{\mathrm{T}}$$, defined by
 * $$\mu_{\mathrm{T}} = \left(\frac{\partial H}{\partial P}\right)_T $$.

This last quantity is more easily measured than $$\mu_{\mathrm{JT}}$$. Thus, the expression from the cyclic rule becomes
 * $$\mu_{\mathrm{JT}} = - \frac{\mu_{\mathrm{T}}} {C_p}.$$

This equation can be used to obtain Joule–Thomson coefficients from the more easily measured isothermal Joule–Thomson coefficient. It is used in the following to obtain a mathematical expression for the Joule–Thomson coefficient in terms of the volumetric properties of a fluid.

To proceed further, the starting point is the fundamental equation of thermodynamics in terms of enthalpy; this is
 * $$\mathrm{d}H = T \mathrm{d}S + V \mathrm{d}P.$$

Now "dividing through" by dP, while holding temperature constant, yields
 * $$\left(\frac{\partial H}{\partial P}\right)_T = T\left(\frac{\partial S}{\partial P}\right)_T + V$$

The partial derivative on the left is the isothermal Joule–Thomson coefficient, $$\mu_{\mathrm{T}}$$, and the one on the right can be expressed in terms of the coefficient of thermal expansion via a Maxwell relation. The appropriate relation is
 * $$\left(\frac{\partial S}{\partial P}\right)_T= -\left(\frac{\partial V}{\partial T}\right)_P= -V\alpha\,$$

where α is the cubic coefficient of thermal expansion. Replacing these two partial derivatives yields
 * $$\mu_{\mathrm{T}} = - T V\alpha\ + V. $$

This expression can now replace $$\mu_{\mathrm{T}}$$ in the earlier equation for $$\mu_{\mathrm{JT}}$$ to obtain:
 * $$\mu_{\mathrm{JT}} \equiv \left( \frac{\partial T}{\partial P} \right)_H = \frac V {C_{\mathrm{p}}} (\alpha T - 1).\,$$

This provides an expression for the Joule–Thomson coefficient in terms of the commonly available properties heat capacity, molar volume, and thermal expansion coefficient. It shows that the Joule–Thomson inversion temperature, at which $$\mu_{\mathrm{JT}}$$ is zero, occurs when the coefficient of thermal expansion is equal to the inverse of the temperature. Since this is true at all temperatures for ideal gases (see expansion in gases), the Joule–Thomson coefficient of an ideal gas is zero at all temperatures.

Joule's second law
It is easy to verify that for an ideal gas defined by suitable microscopic postulates that αT = 1, so the temperature change of such an ideal gas at a Joule–Thomson expansion is zero. For such an ideal gas, this theoretical result implies that:
 * The internal energy of a fixed mass of an ideal gas depends only on its temperature (not pressure or volume).

This rule was originally found by Joule experimentally for real gases and is known as Joule's second law. More refined experiments found important deviations from it.

title: Joule–Thomson effect


text:
A Room with a View

A Room with a View is a 1908 novel by English writer E. M. Forster, about a young woman in the restrained culture of Edwardian-era England. Set in Italy and England, the story is both a romance and a humorous critique of English society at the beginning of the 20th century. Merchant Ivory produced an award-winning film adaptation in 1985.

The Modern Library ranked A Room with a View 79th on its list of the 100 best English-language novels of the 20th century (1998).

Part one
The novel is set in the early 1900s as upper-middle-class English women are beginning to lead more independent, adventurous lives. In the first part Miss Lucy Honeychurch is touring Italy with her overly fussy spinster cousin and chaperone, Miss Charlotte Bartlett. The novel opens in Florence with the women complaining about their rooms at the Pensione Bertolini. They were promised rooms with a view of the River Arno but instead have ones overlooking a drab courtyard. Another guest, Mr. Emerson, interrupts their "peevish wrangling" by spontaneously offering to swap rooms. He and his son, George, both have rooms with views of the Arno and he argues, "Women like looking at a view; men don’t." Charlotte rejects the offer, partly because she looks down on the Emersons' unconventional behaviour and because she fears it would place them under an "unseemly obligation". However another guest, Mr. Beebe, an Anglican clergyman, persuades Charlotte to accept the offer; Charlotte suggests that the Emersons are socialists.

The following day Lucy spends a "long morning" in the Basilica of Santa Croce, accompanied by Miss Eleanor Lavish, a novelist who promises to lead her on an adventure. Lavish confiscates Lucy's Baedeker guidebook, proclaiming she will show Lucy the "true Italy". On the way to Santa Croce the two take a wrong turn and get lost. After drifting for hours through various streets and piazzas they eventually make it to the square in front of the church, only for Lavish (who still has Lucy's Baedeker) to abandon the younger woman to pursue an old acquaintance.

Inside the church Lucy runs into the Emersons. Although the other visitors find Mr. Emerson's behaviour somewhat unrefined, Lucy discovers she likes them both; she repeatedly encounters them in Florence. While touring Piazza della Signoria Lucy and George Emerson separately witness a murder. Overcome by its gruesomeness Lucy faints and is aided by George. Recovered, she asks him to retrieve the photographs she dropped near the murder scene. George finds them but as they are covered in blood he throws them into the river before telling Lucy; Lucy observes how boyish George is. As they stop by the River Arno before returning to the pensione they engage in a personal conversation.

Lucy decides to avoid George, partly because she is confused by her feelings and also to placate Charlotte, who grows wary of the eccentric Emersons. She overheard Mr. Eager, a clergyman, saying that Mr. Emerson, "murdered his wife in the sight of God".

Later in the week Mr. Beebe, Mr. Eager, the Emersons, Miss Lavish, Charlotte and Lucy go on a day trip to Fiesole, a scenic area above Florence, driven in two carriages by Italian drivers. One driver is permitted to have a pretty girl he claims is his sister sitting next to him on the box seat. When he kisses her Mr. Eager promptly orders her to leave. In the other carriage Mr. Emerson remarks how it is defeat rather than victory to part two people in love.

On a hillside Lucy abandons Miss Lavish and Miss Bartlett to their gossip and goes searching for Mr Beebe. Misunderstanding Lucy's awkward Italian, the driver leads her to where George is admiring the view. Overcome by Lucy's beauty amongst a field of violets, he takes her in his arms and kisses her. However they are interrupted by Charlotte, who is shocked and upset but mostly is ruffled by her own failure as a chaperone. Lucy promises Charlotte that she will say nothing to her mother about the "insult" George has paid her. The two women leave for Rome the next day before Lucy can say goodbye to George.

Part two
In Rome Lucy spends time with Cecil Vyse, whom she knew in England. Cecil twice proposes to Lucy in Italy; she rejects him both times. As Part Two begins, Lucy has returned to Surrey, England, to her family home, Windy Corner. Cecil proposes yet again and this time she accepts. Cecil is a sophisticated London aesthete whose rank and class make him a desirable match despite his despising country society; he is a rather comic figure, who is snobbish and gives himself pretentious airs.

The vicar, Mr. Beebe, announces that a local villa has been leased; the new tenants are the Emersons, who, after a chance meeting with Cecil in London, learned about the villa being available. Cecil enticed them to come to the village as a comeuppance to the villa's landlord, Sir Harry Otway, who Cecil (who believes himself to be very democratic) thinks is a snob. Lucy is angry with Cecil, as she had tentatively arranged for the elderly Misses Alan, who had also been guests at the Pensione Bertolini, to rent the villa.

Fate takes an ironic turn as Mr. Beebe introduces Lucy's brother, Freddy, to the Emersons. Freddy invites George for "a bathe" in a nearby pond in the woods. Freddy, George and Mr. Beebe go there. Freddy and George undress and jump in, eventually persuading Mr. Beebe to join them. The men enjoy themselves, frolicking and splashing in and out of the pond and running through the bushes until Lucy, her mother and Cecil, having taken a short-cut through the woods during their walk, come upon them.

Freddy later invites George to play tennis at Windy Corner. Although Lucy is initially mortified by facing both George and Cecil she resolves to be gracious. Cecil annoys everyone by pacing around and reading aloud from a light romance novel that contains a scene suspiciously reminiscent of George's kissing Lucy in Fiesole. George catches Lucy alone in the garden and kisses her again. Lucy realizes that the novel was written by Miss Lavish (the writer-acquaintance from Florence) and that Charlotte must thus have told her about the kiss.

Furious with Charlotte for betraying her secret, Lucy forces her cousin to watch as she orders George to leave Windy Corner and never return. George argues that Cecil sees Lucy only as an "object for the shelf" and will never love her enough to grant her independence, whereas he loves her for who she is. Lucy is moved but remains firm. Later that evening, after Cecil again rudely declines to play tennis, Lucy sees Cecil for what he truly is and ends their engagement. She decides to flee to Greece with the two Misses Alan.

Meanwhile George, unable to bear being around Lucy, is moving his father back to London, unaware Lucy has broken off her engagement. Shortly before Lucy's departure she accidentally encounters Mr. Emerson at Mr. Beebe's house. He is unaware that Lucy is no longer engaged and Lucy is unable to lie to him. With open, honest talk Mr. Emerson strips away her defenses, forcing her to admit she has been in love with George all along. He also mentions how his wife had "gone under"—lost the will to live—because she feared that George's contracting typhoid at the age of 12 was a punishment for his not being baptized. Her fear was the result of a visit by the stern clergyman Mr. Eager, and the incident explains Eager's later claim that Mr. Emerson had "murdered his wife in the sight of God".

The novel ends in Florence, where George and Lucy have eloped without Mrs. Honeychurch's consent. However Lucy has learned that Charlotte knew that Mr. Emerson was at Mr. Beebe's that fateful day and had not discouraged nor prevented her from going in and encountering him. Although Lucy "had alienated Windy Corner, perhaps for ever" (although the appendix implies a reconciliation with her family), the story ends with the promise of lifelong love for both her and George.

Appendix
In some editions an appendix to the novel is given entitled "A View without a Room", written by Forster in 1958 relating what occurred between Lucy and George after the events of the novel. It is Forster's afterthought to the novel, and he quite clearly states that "I cannot think where George and Lucy live." They were quite comfortable until the end of the First World War, with Charlotte Bartlett leaving them all her money in her will, but the war ruined their happiness according to Forster. George became a conscientious objector and lost his government job. He was given non-combatant duties to avoid prison. This left Mrs. Honeychurch deeply upset with her son-in-law. Mr. Emerson died during the war, shortly after having a confrontation with police over Lucy's playing the music of a German composer, Beethoven, on the piano. Eventually the couple had three children, two girls and a boy, and moved to Carshalton from Highgate to find a home. Despite their wanting to move into Windy Corner after Mrs. Honeychurch's death, Freddy sold the house to support his family, as he was "an unsuccessful but prolific doctor".

Immediately after the outbreak of the Second World War George enlisted, seeing the need to stop Hitler and the Nazi regime. He was unfaithful to Lucy during his time at war. Lucy was left homeless when her flat in Watford was bombed and the same happened to her married daughter in Nuneaton. George rose to the rank of corporal but was taken prisoner by the Italians in Africa. Once the fascist government in Italy had fallen George returned to Florence. Finding it "in a mess", he was unable to find the Pensione Bertolini, stating "the View was still there" and that "the room must be there, too, but could not be found." Forster ends by stating that George and Lucy await the Third World War, but with no word on where they live, for even he does not know.

He adds that Cecil served in "Information or whatever the withholding of information was then entitled" during the war and was able to trick an Alexandria hostess into playing Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata by claiming he was Belgian, not German.

Allusions to other works

 * Mr. Beebe recalls his first encounter with Lucy was hearing her play the first of the two movements of Beethoven's final piano sonata, Opus 111, at a talent show in Tunbridge Wells.
 * While visiting the Emersons Mr. Beebe contemplates the numerous books strewn around.
 * "I fancy they know how to read – a rare accomplishment. What have they got? Byron. Exactly. A Shropshire Lad. Never heard of it. The Way of All Flesh. Never heard of it. Gibbon. Hullo! Dear George reads German. Um – um — Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and so we go on. Well, I suppose your generation knows its own business, Honeychurch."

 * At the end of chapter two, old Mr. Emerson quotes A. E. Housman's 'From far, from eve and morning', from A Shropshire Lad.
 * In chapter five, after bemoaning the fact that people do not appreciate landscape paintings any more, Mr. Eager misquotes William Wordsworth's poem title ‘The World Is Too Much With Us’, saying "The world is too much for us."
 * Towards the beginning of Part Two, Cecil quotes a few unidentified stanzas ("Come down, O maid, from yonder mountain height", etc.). They are from Tennyson's narrative poem "The Princess".
 * In the Emersons' home, the wardrobe has "Mistrust all enterprises that require new clothes" (a quote from Henry David Thoreau's Walden) painted upon it.
 * Cecil announces his engagement to Lucy with the words: "I promessi sposi" ("the betrothed") – a reference either to the 1856 Ponchielli opera of that name or the Manzoni novel on which it is based.
 * When George is lying on the grass in Part Two Lucy asks him about the view and he replies, "My father says the only perfect view is the sky over our heads", prompting Cecil to make a throwaway comment about the works of Dante.
 * Late in the novel Lucy sings a song from Sir Walter Scott's The Bride of Lammermoor, finishing with the lines 'Vacant heart, and hand, and eye,-/Easy live and quiet die'. Forster also incorporated Donizetti's operatic adaptation of Scott's novel, Lucia di Lammermoor, into the concert scene of his first published novel, Where Angels Fear to Tread. Like A Room with a View, The Bride of Lammermoor is centered on a talented but restrained young woman encouraged into an engagement not of her choosing.

Writing
A Room with a View had a lengthy gestation. By late 1902 Forster was working on a novel set in Italy which he called the 'Lucy novel'. In 1903 and 1904 he pushed it aside to work on other projects. He was still revising it in 1908.

Stage, film, radio, and television adaptations
The novel was first adapted for the theatre by Richard Cottrell with Lance Severling for the Prospect Theatre Company, and staged at the Albery Theatre on 27 November 1975 by directors Toby Robertson and Timothy West.

Merchant Ivory produced an award-winning film adaptation in 1985 directed by James Ivory and starring Maggie Smith as Charlotte Bartlett, Helena Bonham Carter as Lucy Honeychurch, Judi Dench as Eleanor Lavish, Denholm Elliott as Mr. Emerson, Julian Sands as George Emerson, Daniel Day-Lewis as Cecil Vyse and Simon Callow as The Reverend Mr. Beebe.

BBC Radio 4 produced a four-part radio adaptation written by David Wade and directed by Glyn Dearman (released commercially as part of the BBC Radio Collection) in 1995 starring Sheila Hancock as Charlotte Bartlett, Cathy Sara as Lucy Honeychurch, John Moffat as Mr. Emerson, Gary Cady as George Emerson and Stephen Moore as The Reverend Mr. Beebe. The production was rebroadcast on BBC7 in June 2007, April 2008, June 2009 and March 2010 and on BBC Radio 4 Extra in August 2012, March 2017 and August 2023.

In 2006 Andrew Davies announced that he was to adapt A Room with a View for ITV. This was first shown on ITV1 on 4 November 2007. It starred father and son actors Timothy and Rafe Spall as Mr Emerson and George, together with Elaine Cassidy as Lucy Honeychurch, Sophie Thompson as Charlotte Bartlett, Laurence Fox as Cecil Vyse, Sinéad Cusack as Miss Lavish, Timothy West as Mr Eager and Mark Williams as Reverend Beebe. This adaptation was broadcast in the US on many PBS stations on Sunday 13 April 2008.

A musical version of the novel, directed by Scott Schwartz, opened at San Diego's Old Globe Theatre in previews on March 2, 2012 with opening night March 10, and ran until April 15. Conceived by Marc Acito, the production featured music and lyrics by Jeffrey Stock and additional lyrics by Acito. The cast included Karen Ziemba as Charlotte Bartlett, Ephie Aardema as Lucy Honeychurch, Kyle Harris as George Emerson and Will Reynolds as Cecil Vyse.

A reworked version of the musical opened at Seattle's 5th Avenue Theatre on April 15, 2014, following two weeks of previews, and ran through May 11. Directed by David Armstrong (director), the show's cast featured Louis Hobson as George Emerson, Laura Griffith as Lucy Honeychurch, Allen Fitzpatrick as Mr. Emerson, Patti Cohenour as Charlotte Bartlett and Richard Gray as Reverend Beebe.

L.A. Theatre Works recorded an audio adaptation of the novel at UCLA's James Bridges Theater in March 2019. The production featured Julian Sands as Mr. Emerson Sr., Eugene Simon as George Emerson, and Eleanor Tomlinson as Lucy Honeychurch. It is available for streaming online in two parts, Part 1 and Part 2.

In 2020 Kevin Kwan released his novel Sex and Vanity, a contemporary adaptation, in which the characters are well-connected aristocrats and some are Crazy Rich Asians.

In popular culture

 * Noël Coward composed the 1928 hit song called ‘A Room with a View’, the title of which he acknowledged as coming from Forster's novel.
 * A scene from the film adaptation is viewed by the main characters of the US television show Gilmore Girls in the 2004 episode ‘A Messenger, Nothing More’. Rory tells Lorelai that she wants to show her home movies from her trip to Europe with her grandmother. A clip of Maggie Smith lamenting their lack of views is shown.
 * The first verse of Rage Against the Machine's 1992 song ‘Know Your Enemy’ features the line "As we move into '92/Still in a room without a view".
 * The title of The Divine Comedy's 2005 album Victory for the Comic Muse is taken from a line in the book. The track ‘Death of a Supernaturalist’ from their album Liberation opens with George Emerson's line "My father says there is only one perfect view, and that's the view of the sky over our heads", followed by Cecil's "I expect your father has been reading Dante".
 * In the 2007 episode ‘Branch Wars’ of the US television show The Office, the Finer Things Club is seen reading and discussing the book at an English tea party.
 * The film adaptation is discussed by the main characters of the 2011 British romantic drama Weekend.
 * Sarah Winman's character Evelyn Skinner in ‘Still Life’ mentions that she was with E.M. Forster in Florence at the time he was writing ‘A Room with a View’.

title: A Room with a View